But read that again. It's a sentence of striking ambiguity. Is he saying that extreme weather has become worse? That would be untrue, of course.
But that's climate 'science' for you. Hedge fund investor rents a lord and some space at the LSE to promote his latest bubble investments in a plausible way. Curious whether he and others are behind the disinvestment campaigns. Convincing suckers to sell oil & gas stocks at the bottom of the market is potentially lucrative after all.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, no warming for 18+ years, no evidence of any abnormal weather or climate yet we're still committed to spending £18bn+ a year. And your fellow travellers have roped in the Pope to help lobby for the UN's $100bn a year.
There is no parrott parrott parrott parrott parrott parrott parrott parrott parrott parrott parrott parrott parrott
But you're so.. trusting. My statement is of course correct, as any marketing person would tell you. It's also true in a standard political sense, ie 97% of the statements made in support of cAGW.
You are always in denial. So I show you where you can find CO2 radiance data, even in a handily formatted w/m^2 format. You naturally deny this exists.
Again confirming you haven't read the papers. The data in Hansen's was mostly from his GISS models.
I guess this is the problem with climate 'science' vs reality. You think nature is constrained by your logarithms. Nature of course disagrees, which is why you still can't explain how you get so much more energy from so much less CO2. So all you can do is repeatedly parrott 'logarithms.. logarithms..'
Nature (aka reality) frequently disagrees with climate science that's why the data is 'Adjusted' in an attemt to alter reality.
All my accusations about your lying, and the Eel's lying, can be substantiated. In this case, we don't have to look very far. Here you are, lying:
Not true.
But until you tell me what you actually think I have no choice but to take JE's statement on face value particularly given that your recent post seem to substantiate JE's statement.
Not true.
But until you tell me what you actually think I have no choice but to take JE's statement on face value particularly given that your recent post seem to substantiate JE's statement.
I see. So if somebody else lies, you have "no choice" about repeating the lie as if it were your own.
I guess we can all see now how you have arrived at your peculiar set of beliefs.
I see. So if somebody else lies, you have "no choice" about repeating the lie as if it were your own.
I guess we can all see now how you have arrived at your peculiar set of beliefs.
Until such time as you state your position I have no choice other than to accept JE's statement as being true.
Particularly given your recent posts.
On the other hand at least you're not accusing me of lying about negative feedback due to the well established radiative properties of water vapour.
But read that again. It's a sentence of striking ambiguity. Is he saying that extreme weather has become worse? That would be untrue, of course.
But that's climate 'science' for you. Hedge fund investor rents a lord and some space at the LSE to promote his latest bubble investments in a plausible way. Curious whether he and others are behind the disinvestment campaigns. Convincing suckers to sell oil & gas stocks at the bottom of the market is potentially lucrative after all.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, no warming for 18+ years, no evidence of any abnormal weather or climate yet we're still committed to spending £18bn+ a year. And your fellow travellers have roped in the Pope to help lobby for the UN's $100bn a year.
This could be due to water vapour moving from being a net positive feedback to being a net negative feedback resulting in cooling
You mean the one I restated every time the Eel repeated the same lie, but which you are too lazy to check?
It's not as though checking what I claim would be that hard, even with your inability to use a search engine. After all, I restated my position, for the umpteenth time, in the post that immediately followed your endorsement of the Eel's lie:
No, Eel. That would be impossible without some Eelian-style unidirectional physics. What I say, and what science says, and what both I and andykn have repeatedly explained to you, is that the effect on incoming radiation is tiny (so small that for most purposes it can be ignored) and the effect on outgoing radiation is rather large. This is the greenhouse effect, and you deny it. As well as denying mainstream physics, you keep lying about what we have said. Denial and lying are the only tools in your intellectual armoury.
I have no choice other than to accept JE's statement as being true.
Whereas I have no choice other than to conclude that you are as incorrigible a liar as he is.
On the other hand at least you're not accusing me of lying about negative feedback due to the well established radiative properties of water vapour.
That's not so much a lie as you just not understanding any science. But we already knew that from all your other posts:
No I commented on your delusional claim that GHGs only act on outgoing radiation.
And here (once again) is the truth:
"What I say, and what science says, and what both I and andykn have repeatedly explained to you, is that the effect on incoming radiation is tiny (so small that for most purposes it can be ignored) and the effect on outgoing radiation is rather large. This is the greenhouse effect, and you deny it. As well as denying mainstream physics, you keep lying about what we have said. Denial and lying are the only tools in your intellectual armoury."
And right on cue NJP start jumping upand down shouting you don't understand.
Well, you don't. It's science, after all, and you are a veteran denier of all mainstream science.
Okay then NJ take us through the science and explain to us all what Garfinkel et al actually say.
Shouldn't be difficult for you.
It wouldn't be difficult to explain to someone who isn't a science denier. It would, however, be impossible to explain to someone like you, who is.
Lake Mead, poster child of cAGW due to it's tide-line. But it's an artificial lake feeding California and Nevada. So places like Vegas, Sin City built in a desert. So impending droughts in California & Nevada.. Climate change, or a very human problem created by demand exceeding supply..
It is a lie. You claim I say one thing, whereas I keep saying a different thing. Your lie could not be more blatant, nor your constant repetition of the lie more disingenuous.
Lake Mead, poster child of cAGW due to it's tide-line. But it's an artificial lake feeding California and Nevada. So places like Vegas, Sin City built in a desert. So impending droughts in California & Nevada.. Climate change, or a very human problem created by demand exceeding supply..
Ah, yes. The superficial binary thought process of the science denier rears its ugly head once again.
Lake Mead faces challenges from both human problems. Lakes have outputs and inputs, and there has been a prolonged drought in the U.S. Southwest, substantially reducing Lake Mead's input. I'm not even sure what has been happening to the output in the same period. Perhaps you can find some data. Certainly, much more attention has been paid to water recyling than in the past, and there are restrictions in place, so demand may even have dropped.
It is very likely that 1998 being a hot year was just coinicdence meaning that these dangerous weather events will become the norm, at least during the next El Nino.
It is very likely that 1998 being a hot year was just coinicdence meaning that these dangerous weather events will become the norm, at least during the next El Nino.
From that link:
'"Even before the onset of El Nino, global average surface temperatures had reached new records. El Nino is turning up the heat even further," he said.'
'"Even before the onset of El Nino, global average surface temperatures had reached new records. El Nino is turning up the heat even further," he said.'
Not sure where you got "a bit cold" from.
JE, njp and elfcurry will be here to tell you all about it.
JE, njp and elfcurry will be here to tell you all about it.
Probably not. I wasn't sure what point alanwarwic was trying to make about El Nino, so I had decided not to comment.
But since the usual suspects are starting to assemble, I'll just repeat my oft-repeated observation that the 1998 El Nino raised global temperatures 2 standard deviations above the trend line. Those temperatures are now becoming the new normal. 2015 will become the new warmest year in the instrumental record, and 2016 will likely be hotter still, thanks to the current El Nino. 2017 will probably be a bit cooler, and then the science deniers will once again be falling over each other to announce the end of global warming, or that the planet is cooling despite increased CO2, and hence science is wrong.
That's before we even consider the weather impacts of El Nino events.
JE, njp and elfcurry will be here to tell you all about it.
You've not followed the conversation; alanwarwick said "Its gone a bit cold here now" but backed that up with a link saying "El Nino is turning up the heat even further,"
Yes, so cold we might only be left with the UKIP arguing against science probabiity.
Sadly we still have the conservatives saying one thing in public whilst actioning the opposite.
One thing coming to light further is that the fixation on sea levels may well be the least of our worries, certainly in the short term.
I long ago hypothesised about the unknowns of future regional temperature changes, yet it is looking like a large change in rainfall pattern is to be the first serious consequence of warming.
It is very likely that 1998 being a hot year was just coinicdence meaning that these dangerous weather events will become the norm, at least during the next El Nino.
Not long ago, the Met Office told us we were facing a drought. Then it rained. So El Nino. Where does the warmth come from, and where does it go? So how does El Nino 'warm'?
Yes, so cold we might only be left with the UKIP arguing against science probabiity.
Sadly we still have the conservatives saying one thing in public whilst actioning the opposite.
One thing coming to light further is that the fixation on sea levels may well be the least of our worries, certainly in the short term.
I long ago hypothesised about the unknowns of future regional temperature changes, yet it is looking like a large change in rainfall pattern is to be the first serious consequence of warming.
According to interviews in one Scottish flood area, these are the worst floods in 60 years. So what caused them then?
Probably not. I wasn't sure what point alanwarwic was trying to make about El Nino, so I had decided not to comment.
But since the usual suspects are starting to assemble, I'll just repeat my oft-repeated observation that the 1998 El Nino raised global temperatures 2 standard deviations above the trend line. Those temperatures are now becoming the new normal. 2015 will become the new warmest year in the instrumental record, and 2016 will likely be hotter still, thanks to the current El Nino. 2017 will probably be a bit cooler, and then the science deniers will once again be falling over each other to announce the end of global warming, or that the planet is cooling despite increased CO2, and hence science is wrong.
That's before we even consider the weather impacts of El Nino events.
Is there proof positive that El Nino caused the rise and how many degrees is 2 standard deviations?
It would seem to me that you may be saying that El Nino causes temperature rises.
Incidentally, I knew you'd make it. Have a windless new year.
Comments
There is no possibility of you having understood Hansen's paper, or any other scientific paper. You can't even understand logarithms!
It's politics. See also-
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/5/1/the-weaselly-ways-of-lord-stern.html
But read that again. It's a sentence of striking ambiguity. Is he saying that extreme weather has become worse? That would be untrue, of course.
But that's climate 'science' for you. Hedge fund investor rents a lord and some space at the LSE to promote his latest bubble investments in a plausible way. Curious whether he and others are behind the disinvestment campaigns. Convincing suckers to sell oil & gas stocks at the bottom of the market is potentially lucrative after all.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, no warming for 18+ years, no evidence of any abnormal weather or climate yet we're still committed to spending £18bn+ a year. And your fellow travellers have roped in the Pope to help lobby for the UN's $100bn a year.
Nature (aka reality) frequently disagrees with climate science that's why the data is 'Adjusted' in an attemt to alter reality.
Not true.
But until you tell me what you actually think I have no choice but to take JE's statement on face value particularly given that your recent post seem to substantiate JE's statement.
Oh yes, everyone is a conspiract theorist except you.:D
I guess we can all see now how you have arrived at your peculiar set of beliefs.
Until such time as you state your position I have no choice other than to accept JE's statement as being true.
Particularly given your recent posts.
On the other hand at least you're not accusing me of lying about negative feedback due to the well established radiative properties of water vapour.
This could be due to water vapour moving from being a net positive feedback to being a net negative feedback resulting in cooling
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140202111055.htm
It's not as though checking what I claim would be that hard, even with your inability to use a search engine. After all, I restated my position, for the umpteenth time, in the post that immediately followed your endorsement of the Eel's lie:
Whereas I have no choice other than to conclude that you are as incorrigible a liar as he is.
That's not so much a lie as you just not understanding any science. But we already knew that from all your other posts:
And right on cue, there you are, not understanding any science again.
that the effect on incoming radiation is tiny (so small that for most purposes it can be ignored) and the effect on outgoing radiation is rather large
So for most purposes one directional just as JE claims.
And right on cue NJP start jumping upand down shouting you don't understand.
Okay then NJ take us through the science and explain to us all what Garfinkel et al actually say.
Shouldn't be difficult for you.
Here is the Eel's lie:
And here is your lie:
And here (once again) is the truth:
"What I say, and what science says, and what both I and andykn have repeatedly explained to you, is that the effect on incoming radiation is tiny (so small that for most purposes it can be ignored) and the effect on outgoing radiation is rather large. This is the greenhouse effect, and you deny it. As well as denying mainstream physics, you keep lying about what we have said. Denial and lying are the only tools in your intellectual armoury."
Well, you don't. It's science, after all, and you are a veteran denier of all mainstream science.
It wouldn't be difficult to explain to someone who isn't a science denier. It would, however, be impossible to explain to someone like you, who is.
You believe it's a lie. You cannot quantify it. You must accept that GHGs are bi-directional.
But now for something completely different-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_uANbjviYs
Lake Mead, poster child of cAGW due to it's tide-line. But it's an artificial lake feeding California and Nevada. So places like Vegas, Sin City built in a desert. So impending droughts in California & Nevada.. Climate change, or a very human problem created by demand exceeding supply..
Ah, yes. The superficial binary thought process of the science denier rears its ugly head once again.
Lake Mead faces challenges from both human problems. Lakes have outputs and inputs, and there has been a prolonged drought in the U.S. Southwest, substantially reducing Lake Mead's input. I'm not even sure what has been happening to the output in the same period. Perhaps you can find some data. Certainly, much more attention has been paid to water recyling than in the past, and there are restrictions in place, so demand may even have dropped.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-35197887
It is very likely that 1998 being a hot year was just coinicdence meaning that these dangerous weather events will become the norm, at least during the next El Nino.
'"Even before the onset of El Nino, global average surface temperatures had reached new records. El Nino is turning up the heat even further," he said.'
Not sure where you got "a bit cold" from.
JE, njp and elfcurry will be here to tell you all about it.
But since the usual suspects are starting to assemble, I'll just repeat my oft-repeated observation that the 1998 El Nino raised global temperatures 2 standard deviations above the trend line. Those temperatures are now becoming the new normal. 2015 will become the new warmest year in the instrumental record, and 2016 will likely be hotter still, thanks to the current El Nino. 2017 will probably be a bit cooler, and then the science deniers will once again be falling over each other to announce the end of global warming, or that the planet is cooling despite increased CO2, and hence science is wrong.
That's before we even consider the weather impacts of El Nino events.
You've not followed the conversation; alanwarwick said "Its gone a bit cold here now" but backed that up with a link saying "El Nino is turning up the heat even further,"
I think only he can explain what he meant.
Sadly we still have the conservatives saying one thing in public whilst actioning the opposite.
One thing coming to light further is that the fixation on sea levels may well be the least of our worries, certainly in the short term.
I long ago hypothesised about the unknowns of future regional temperature changes, yet it is looking like a large change in rainfall pattern is to be the first serious consequence of warming.
Not long ago, the Met Office told us we were facing a drought. Then it rained. So El Nino. Where does the warmth come from, and where does it go? So how does El Nino 'warm'?
According to interviews in one Scottish flood area, these are the worst floods in 60 years. So what caused them then?
Is there proof positive that El Nino caused the rise and how many degrees is 2 standard deviations?
It would seem to me that you may be saying that El Nino causes temperature rises.
Incidentally, I knew you'd make it. Have a windless new year.