The denial machine keeps on cranking: guest post from Citizen’s Challenge

Thanks Pete for a great article.

What a long strange trip it’s been. Forty years ago I was a bright eyed high school science student learning about greenhouse gases and the atmosphere and how those processes related to this incredibly fruitful climate our society has been enjoying compared to previous periods during our Earth’s evolution. Fascinating stuff and the science lessons soaked in. 

In the four decades since then, climatology has made astonishing strides with ever improving instruments/tools, satellites, computers and graduating classes of skilled dedicated scientists. Unfortunately, their findings have been reported to an uninterested public. Today a large portion of this treasure trove of serious scientific findings have been collected and organized at “SkepticalScience.com” for those who care to learn. 

Then, twenty-three years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created as an organizing agent for the massive amounts of incoming academic climate studies. And, although the IPCC suffers vitriolic attacks, it continues to function much better than its political opponents dare admit. Recently, a new website Zvon.org has made the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report’s data base easily accessible.  

Where the trip got strange, is that instead of learning to understand and grasp the significance of this incoming climate information, Republicans have resorted to a different tactic. Corporate funded ‘think tanks’ such as Marshall Institute, SPPI, Heartland, etc. have been engaged in producing ‘sceptical’ talking points that use emotional political arguments and PR tactics to confuse and distract the public and politicians from actually coming to grips with climate science. Under serious scrutiny their arguments fall, one after the other. Problem is, they use really loud ~ emotion ~ dripping ~ megaphones ~ dedicated to destroying ~ the messengers ~ in order to ignore the message. 

For example, the right honorable Senator Inhofe demonstrated his disdain for serious climate science with his ridiculous “Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims” where 80% of the signees were not even climate scientists! For example Chris Allen a Southern Baptist creationist who holds no college degree, but is a TV weatherman who’s written: “My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture.” Why such desperate attempts to malign the establishment scientific community? 

Why does US Senator Inhofe resort to using an enterprising fiction writer, Michael Crichton, as an expert witness before his Environment and Public Works Committee? Why use a discredited political performer, and propagandist, one Lord Viscount Monckton of Benchley, as a climate science adviser and expert witness? Perhaps, because, this Senator is a young Earth creationist who resents science on an emotional religious level to begin with. But, how can one understand our climate without appreciating eons worth of its development? 

In addition to the strangeness of ignoring science, the AGW Hoaxer media machine has manufactured an image of the greedy scientific community, eager to tamper with evidence to peddle gloom and doom for love of cash. Do they offer any proof? Of course not, just putting the lies out there and repeating them is enough. Why do we, the people, let them get away with it? 

I bring this up because it’s hideous how Republicans such as Inhofe have vilified scientists. I think it’s worth stopping and catching our collective breath for a moment. Why not consider the type of person who becomes a scientist? Remember those guys and gals in high school? The thoughtful ones, who stood back and focused more on learning than all the other distractions going on. It really says something we shouldn’t ignore because of political passions. Not that they are some ideal lot, but because it reveals the nature of a person who chooses to become a scientist ~ within whatever character he/she grows into, collecting facts and learning is a core value and that deserves respect! 

The strangest most self destructive part of denialists distortions is their glib rejection for appreciating how massive global climate processes are. A supertanker coming into port plans and makes its speed and course adjustments well ahead of time, with care and respect for the shoals. Why then are we, the people, allowing Republican masters of the universe to keep telling us to disregard the shoals and run our megatanker at full throttle? 

Back in high school we had a saying, more a joke than anything we actually believed: “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.” It’s so strange to think that today’s kids reflecting on their elder’s track record of arrogant disregard for Earth’s processes will realize our leaders don’t have a clue. What shall they conclude? This time around it’s for real? Better not trust anyone over thirty, since they seem incapable of looking beyond the rear view mirror.

About these ads

332 thoughts on “The denial machine keeps on cranking: guest post from Citizen’s Challenge

  1. john byatt says:

    Adhoms at TCS only allowed by moderator Go-eff himself

    place head in vice before reading

    Geoff
    Why don’t you just keep making your stupid comments at WTF Deniers and don’t come over here and show off your lack of analytical ability. There is no discrepancy between “Possible Ice age Coming” and the fact that is HAS BEEN WARMING.

    Also, if you want to take it further, two different authors can have two different opinions. We do NOT, unlike you, Mr Byatt, have closed minds. We are sceptics not deniers like you lot over at WTF deniers.

  2. john byatt says:

    jefft And “One swallow does not make a Spring”, one recent visit to TCS to check out your ravings, doesn’t make a frequent visitor,

    Jefft porkie, “I wouldn’t know whether you are telling the truth. I’ve only had alook the other day due to you insistence.”

    then you cannot even see the contradiction with

    jefft “I leave posting on TCS to Geoff B. who does an excellent job ”

    you don’t go there but you state the geoff does an excellent job

    Jefft porkie , if you don’t go there then you don’t know what sort of job he is doing,

    what is it with you people and total lack of logic?

  3. john byatt says:

    Jefft porkie, “I wouldn’t know whether you are telling the truth. I’ve only had alook the other day due to you insistence.”

    jefft “I leave posting on TCS to Geoff B. who does an excellent job ”

    another triumph of jefft contradictions

    i don’t read it but geoff is doing an excellent job,

    • JeffT says:

      John Byatt (B3)(B4) the false accuser,

      Yes J.B.3, that’s why I suggested you make a pig of yourself. Gorge yourself.
      Second thought on that – make that Turkey neck, then you would be being cannibalistic.
      Don’t wash the item, leave the crap on, it will give you more crap to post.

      And “One swallow does not make a Spring”, one recent visit to TCS to check out your ravings, doesn’t make a frequent visitor, and it showed that you visit there more than I do, and using the name “Anonymous”, then when shown up, – as “Anonymous John Byatt”.

      Watt’s Up With using an ID that is identifiable. I use my ‘nom de plume’ everywhere I blog or post.
      J.

  4. john byatt says:

    Oh John Byatt,
    Your baiting, and I won’t bite.
    Pathetic John, just pathetic.

    Out of sympaty, I’ll relent a little.
    How about I give a couple of nibbles, can’t have you going apoplectic.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/shredding-the-climate-consensus-myth-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore/

    http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2010/12/28/bring-on-that-global-warming-1?blog=193

    I know where these come from. So we’ll just let you have another rave about the source.

    So now jefft (porkie) does not have a source at all for
    Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    Porkie thinks that watts is the biological institute of the Russian Academy

    FAIL jefft , where is the source of you porkie ? put it up

  5. john byatt says:

    jeff the porkie t, is there any subject at all that you understand ,

    Food

    Cholesterol Content by mass (mg/g)

    Chicken Liver

    5.61

    Chicken Giblets

    4.42

    Eggs

    4.24

    Beef Liver

    3.81

    Turkey Giblets

    2.89

    Butter

    2.18

    Pork Liver Sausage

    1.8

    Shrimp

    1.73

    Sardines

    1.42

    Heavy Cream

    1.4

    Veal

    1.34

    Pork Ribs

    1.21

    Lamb

    1.21

    Turkey Neck

    1.2

    Pork Shoulder

    1.14

    I eat every one of those foods and my good chols is way up ,

    understand what you are talking about first

    loved ” i dont post on the TCS except when i do”

  6. JeffT says:

    John Byatt (B3)(B4),
    As I don’t post on The Climate Skeptics with an exception of once, I wouldn’t know whether you are telling the truth. I’ve only had alook the other day due to you insistence.
    I leave posting on TCS to Geoff B. who does an excellent job and controls the rubbish posts from someone called John “Anonymous” Byatt.
    Make sure you wash your pork ribs down with lots of Carbonated Green Koolaide.
    And pork being a good source of cholesterol, vengeance will be mine.
    Pig on (B3)(B4).
    And don’t forget your medication.
    J.

  7. john byatt says:

    Sorry porkie jeffti cannot keep up with your porkies which porkie are you on about , first second or third porkie ?

    the Climate kleptics have put up a post linking CO2 with the current warming,
    so it would seem that we are up to porkie number for,

    hmmmm you are making me hungry for pork ribs in soy for dinner,

    i shall call it Porkie a la Jefft ,

    step one , take ribs, wash crap off

  8. JeffT says:

    John Byatt (B3),
    It can’t be hydrophobia (rabies) that is your problem. That would mean a rabid animal would have had to have bitten you, and even a rabid animal would be choosy.
    So it must the 4th B – Bipolar disorder, that is your disability.

    After you have been supplied with two links that show that I was correct in my post, you still keep up with “porkie” and “porkie pie”.
    This is of course the symptomatic of bipolar disorder, excepting I don’t think you have the positive attributes of bipolar disorder such as talent and genius, except in your own mind.

    The link you have provided, I have read, as it is at the head of this thread. So this just goes to show the level of your talent or understanding. Yes you can post a link !!

    You continue to disregard, put down and rubbish the sciences of Solar research, Galactic Cosmic Ray research, laboratories around the world that work in these fields.
    Your responses to the above show how dangerous drinking Carbonated Green Koolaide really is to your thought processes.

    When there are worldwide monitors for muon counts, magnetometers, neutrino counters such as recently completed Project Icecube, solar telescopes photgraphing, measuring and examining solar, xray, cosmic ray and ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet information, satellites such as SOHO and STEREO investigating solar events. Even you must ask yourself why are they there ? Why have the billions of dollars, rubles etc. been invested in these vast quantities of projects.
    You may even come to the conclusion that the Solar and Galactic events around us, do have a great influence on the planet, on our lives and the weather/climate.
    But I doubt if you have what it takes to rise out of your ad hom mentalty, take another look at the carbon con and stop playing stupid schoolyard games.
    Just don’t forget to take your medication.
    J.

  9. john byatt says:

    porkie ,

    JeffT (12:38:10) :
    John Byatt is STILL waffling on about carbon (dioxide ).

    So we don’t have to guess what he is on about –

    “My aim is to be as incoherent as possible in response to your CO2 obscurantism.”

    you are certainly achieving your aim then porkie jefft

  10. john byatt says:

    Porkie pie Jefft, mate you need to get over to TCS as quickly as possible and put a stop to the CO2 is responsible regime change there.

    you appear to have been tossed to the wolves

    latest post at TCS porkie

    “Thus while many sceptics would agree with the central proposition that the Earth has been warming, it is the level of potential harm, and the existence of practically achievable solutions that determines if any action should be taken.
    Even the central proposition of the mainstream science – that most of the global warming since the mid 20th century is very likely due to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gas concentrations – does not necessarily entail harm, or actions of any kind.

    as i said start your own porkie blog these guys have dumped your muons GCR’s and fairies “what done it”

    • JeffT says:

      John Byatt (B3),
      Possibly you may have noticed, in between your delusions, that I don’t post on The Climate Sceptics. I feel Geoff B. does an excellent job, including reining in the ODD post from some one called John “Anonymous” Byatt.

      You did post above about John Cook’s Skeptical Science and their response to the south pole muon counter aka Project Icecube. You did do that as a joke, right ? You’ve got to be kidding haven’t you ?
      “The IceCube project is part of the University of Wisconsin–Madison projects developed and supervised by the same institution, while collaboration and funding is provided by numerous other universities and research institutions worldwide.” (Wikipedia – Project Icecube ).
      And you quote John Cook’s Skeptical Science, “B3″ you have excelled in stupid and gullible.
      J.

  11. JeffT says:

    John Byatt is STILL waffling on about carbon (dioxide ).

    So we don’t have to guess what he is on about –
    My aim is to be as incoherent as possible in response to your CO2 obscurantism.

    Your ” let’s baffle ‘em all with science” is hilarious, your belief in modeling as the be-all-and-end-all is a worry. Your lack of interest in history involving climate is pathetic.
    And your lack of respect for people that have been there, done that, with qualifications to suit, is alarming and even sad. One instance of many is your continual attacks on Viv Forbes.

    It appears to be that as these people who do not agree with your paradigm of CO2 as a pollutant, and the whole AGW scenario, so must be vilified at every opportunity.
    A bit like a kid in the schoolyard really.

    • john byatt says:

      If you like history porkie pie Jefft then here is the complete history of CO2

      The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
      4. Nernst also noted that the additional CO2 would fertilize crops. James Franck, interview by Thomas Kuhn, p. 6, Archive for History of Quantum Physics, …
      Greenhouse Speculations … – Skepticism (1900-1940s) – Callendar’s Advocacy
      http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm – Cached – Similar

      My reply in the paper yesterday to Fib’s latest drivel, related to facts not Fib’s ongoing hysteria , there was another conspiracy theory moron printed on the same day as Fib, backing him

      I killed two birds with one stone, now do you actually have any science or only ice flow videos and muon mumbling ,

      muoncounter at skeptical science works on the antarctica project ,

      the editor of the paper has given Fib and quite a few of your kleptic mates ample space to present their evidence, they have so far put up miscolczi and paltridge, swiftly dealt with .

  12. JeffT says:

    Oh John Byatt,
    Your baiting, and I won’t bite.
    Pathetic John, just pathetic.

    Out of sympaty, I’ll relent a little.
    How about I give a couple of nibbles, can’t have you going apoplectic.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/shredding-the-climate-consensus-myth-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore/

    http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2010/12/28/bring-on-that-global-warming-1?blog=193

    I know where these come from. So we’ll just let you have another rave about the source.

  13. john byatt says:

    well i have hunted it up jeff, your porkie that is , guess what it does not exist,

    so its a porkie

    And you’re diverting away from the subjects at hand to play

    the subjects at hand seems to be guess what jefft is on about

  14. john byatt says:

    here is your post jefft ,

    In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    “in my opinion and my institute

    only way to prove your point that it was from where you say is to give the link jefft, why wont you do that,

    cause its a porkie that is why

  15. johns sock puppet says:

    here is your post jefft ,

    In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    “in my opinion and my institute

    only way to prove your point that it was from where you say is to give the link jefft, why wont you do that,

    cause its a porkie that is why

  16. JeffT says:

    Oh you are a funny fella John Byatt,
    And you can’t read either. From by my post (07:14:57)

    “I didn’t tell a porkie. (Apology required )
    I did your trick of cutting and pasting. This statement is from the Russian biologist Pavel Makarevich, not from the Russian Academy of Sciences.”

    Note it clearly states – ” not from the Russian Academy of Sciences ”

    Don’t you remember, you even commented on at (07:19:58)

    “Cut and paste from where Jeff ? otherwise its a porkie and you wont be believed by anyone if you post porkies”

    Apparently your lack of memory is symptomatic.
    Why don’t you tally up your ad homs. I couldn’t be bothered, more waste of time.

    You also do not link to your sources in most cases.
    And if you can comment on a member of Mensa in a derogatory way, your quip – “IQ room temperature ” (another John Byatt ad hom ) is just laughable, from a prat (see dictionary @ (07:59:01)

  17. johns sock puppet says:

    bit weird alright

  18. john byatt says:

    Sneaky porkie telling jefft , has been going back and putting up replies to old stuff to try to make himself look ggod

    here is another one that just went up

    JeffT (08:06:07) :
    Yes John Byatt,
    I was identifying Gore’s G.I.M. LLC and Gore’s The Climate Project.

    Out with that brown paper bag John, and breathe deeply in and out of it a few times.
    Reduces your hyperventilation.
    See – free first aid information for you.

    or maybe it takers him a week to work out a reply?

    • john byatt says:

      that one was 63 posts ago, that is a bit weird ,

      • JeffT says:

        Just love weird J.B. – just for you.
        Only 63 posts ago ?
        Jeez, now I’ve got John counting posts – you’ve been elevated to a higher plain.

        Out with that brown paper bag John, and breathe deeply in and out of it a few times.
        Reduces your hyperventilation.
        You are hyperventilating – aren’t you ?
        Frothing at the mouth may be a sign of hydrophobia.

        J.

  19. john byatt says:

    Bet he does not admit to his porkie i said to my self, come back and no admission at all

    first you tell a porkie

    then you tell another porkie claiming that you cut and pasted it from the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    Jeff’s Ad homs, strawmans and insults to date 24509846

    Porkies 2654876

    making any sense 0

    IQ room temperature

  20. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    How big of you to congratulate Dr David Evans.
    He probably thought afterwards – “who was that prat ? ”

    Dictionary – prat: Basically someone who’s a major idiot, or is delusional and dumb. Acts against logic and thinks he’s self-righteous. AKA: Major dumbass.

    And “Anonymous John Byatt”, your little, rather unimportant jaunt to The Climate Sceptic’s blog was unspectacular and still showed your smartass self in the sarcastic way of posting. At least you didn’t ad hom, probably why the posts are still there.

    Now go and practice some Buteyko, to save your CO2

  21. john byatt says:

    i even congratulated David Evans for working out how to save the planet jeff, Geoff was very impressed,

    don’t think they want you there anymore under the new CO2 causes warming regime

    now back to your porkie

    start your own blog jeff , call it “Porkies”

  22. john byatt says:

    what about your porkie re Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the….. Russian Academy of Sciences.

    you better read
    David Evans at TCS today jeffT

    TCS reckons your wrong, they say that reducing co2 reduces temperature

    ,

    • JeffT says:

      John Byatt’s still waffling on about CO2, and reductions.

      Back to an apology for the accusation of telling a lie re Makarevich.

      The only CO2 reduction I want to know about is John Byatt’s reduction of exhaled CO2.

      And now your telling us that you also follow TCS’s blog. Bet they feel honoured -LOL

    • JeffT says:

      No John Byatt,
      I’m now a bit wiser than to keep supplying url’s and links to you.
      Do you own hunting, just like I have to.
      You’ll get it wrong, just like you did above -tough.

      And you’re diverting away from the subjects at hand to play accusations.
      All bluster and lacking in subject.
      I’ve seen you try this crap on with Geoff Brown. It doesn’t work with me either, and I’m colder than Brownie.

  23. JeffT says:

    Watt’s this John Byatt ?,
    You have been reading Joanne Nova’s website !
    And taking notice of Dr David Evans’s figures as well ?
    Crikey, you must have not seen the projected figures for Australia came from –
    ” Tada ” (Microsoft fanfare ) – the IPCC.
    I muse over whether the 100% reduction by 2050, in Australia, resulting in a whole(?) 0.0154 degC,(worldwide), includes John Byatt holding his breath for that period.

    Wouldn’t it also depend on China, India, Korea not being supplied with coal from Australia, South Africa and South America ? ie shut them down as well.
    They also have coal mines in Mongolia and Manchuria.
    (the 78x factor )

    But, but, John Byatt, China requires all of that 24/7 electrical energy to extract and process all of that rare earth element material from mines in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, to make all those wind turbine rotor magnets, electric motor field magnets, for hybrid and electric cars – to save the world from all that carbon (dioxide) blanket that is cooking the planet.
    Not to mention the bluudy great big steel mill alongside the REE processing plant, wouldn’t operate on fanpower.
    (Hold on Jang, the wind isn’t blowing )

    Long way from the turbines on the Three Gorges dam, wind fans won’t do it.
    Looks like it’s back to COAL and CO2.
    So solly John B.

  24. john byatt says:

    Jefft told a porkie

    In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the….. Russian Academy of Sciences.

    http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

    • JeffT says:

      But you see John Byatt,
      I didn’t tell a porkie. (Apology required )
      I did your trick of cutting and pasting. This statement is from the Russian biologist Pavel Makarevich, not from the Russian Academy of Sciences.
      You also know that various sections of the Russian Academy also hold views contrary to the Academy – eg. Habibullo Abdusssamatov

      There is also a difference of opinions shown in the US -just ask NASA G.I.S.S. about James Hansen’s statements to the media and at protests.

      • john byatt says:

        Cut and paste from where Jeff ? otherwise its a porkie and you wont be believed by anyone if you post porkies

        Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

        you had the Academy in the post jeff, another porkie ?

        i reckon you made that up Jefft, prove that you did not

  25. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    Yes Flannery would have something to do with tits – the winged kind.
    Spelling – a momentary lack of spelling accuracy.
    You got it right because you ” cut and pasted it “.

    Q – What is a global warming activist ?
    A – Some one who profits by furthering the alarmist cause, writing inaccurate books about “climatism” and making predictions wilder and less accurate than James Hansen’s efforts.

    ” Five times the amount per person than the global average. ”
    Good reason for you to stop exhaling CO2, J.B.
    For you education and edification :-

    “There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    There you are, you can have some fun with that.

  26. john byatt says:

    Why the difference between #1 5.39 DegC

    and

    #2 1.2012 DegC

    because Australians emit five times the amount per person than the global average

  27. john byatt says:

    Professor Tim Flannery (born 28 January 1956) is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist.

    What is a mammologist? The correct spelling is mammalogist, and it’s a person who studies mammals.

    damn thought it had something to do with Tits

  28. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    Results of a Scientific American Survey:

    http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d

    Damn, there’s those GCR’s and Solar again.

    Now what will you rubbish about that ?
    Scientific American ?
    The voters as being scientific illiterate? (not as clever as J.B. ? )
    The survey organisation – Survey Monkey ? ( not Really Scary Climate )
    Invalid because it wasn’t conducted under the UN and /or IPCC auspices ?
    (Ban ki- and Rajendra not happy )

    You wrote:-
    The planet is warming up, fact
    that is due to GHG’s , fact
    that is due to human fossil fuel use, fact

    You answer(s) are stock alarmist responses – probably comes from the mouth of someone such as Dr Tim Flannery ( mammologist ), or Dr Clive Hamilton ( professional ethics ). Oh yes – fact.

    Did you ever hold a position with Enron ? Sounds like some of their submissions.
    Or are you an Al Gore ‘The Climate Project ‘connector ? That’s part of their presentation.

    You can fight it out between Roy Spencer and Ferenc Miskolczi and the CO2 crew.

    Posting anything on here on GCR’s, Cosmic Rays, Solar, Geo-magnetics would be a waste of my time and energy, just to give you more items to target. (ratbag theory – John Byatt (03:43:15))
    I’d much rather study the science. (and watch the ice on webcams- LOL )
    JT

    • john byatt says:

      Evans has turned on you jefft he has got with the science and admitted that reducing CO2 reduces temperature, convince him of your ratbag theories and then we might listen,, not really , DUD

  29. john byatt says:

    here is another way of looking at Evans figure,

    australia emits 1/78 of co2 emissions

    so if everyone done the same then by 2050 we would reduced the temperature by

    .0154 X 78 = 1.2012 DegC

    hurrah Evans has saved the planet

    • JeffT says:

      “If ” John Byatt ?
      Extending all those “complex “figures and you come up with –

      “so if the whole planet done the same then by 2050 we could , on his figures save XXXX”
      The whole planet by 2050 ? but that’s after the tipping point’s.
      And your including China, Russia, USA – rot’s ruck, fella.

      You’re starting to sound like an IPCC report.
      Have you also tried “could be “, “maybe “, “possibly ” ?

      Not as definite as “we will introduce carbon (dioxide ) pricing to parliament in July “.

      Not ” IF ” we introduce carbon (dioxide ) pricing or a “maybe “.

      Yes, definitely sounding like an Enron man, J.B.

  30. john byatt says:

    Evans is a moron also,

    as he says Australias action could reduce the warming by 2050 by 0.0154DegC

    so if the whole planet done the same then by 2050 we could , on his figures save

    .0154 x 350 = 5.39 DegC

    obviously we do not need to go that far , but well done Evans for proving that we can play an important part in reducing the warming by reducing fossil fuel use
    .

  31. john byatt says:

    David Evans on The Climate Kleptics blog fully admitting that the warming is due to CO2,,

    Dr David Evans has crunched the numbers. (here)

    Tops, absolutely as high as it gets, exceeding beyond our wildest expectations — if Australia stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, we could save … 15 thousandths of one degree of warming (0.0154 °C) by 2050. Spiffy eh?

    read it and weep,
    you had better try to convince Evans that the warming is due to GCR’s Flares, fairies at the bottom of the garden or whatever first

    you have been outed by your own side

  32. JeffT says:

    Copied from amongst previous John Byatt “postings ” –

    John Byatt,
    In response to your:
    “we now seem to have dropped solar flares and GCR’s and gone back to CO2,”
    Wrong John Byatt, you can waffle along all you like about CO2 and all the dreadful events your lot can hang off that paradigm.
    My only point in mentioning CO2 is to show IT ISN’T ANYTHING DIFFERENT than what paleogeology, geology and history shows.
    In fact I really don’t care about how much CO2 you breath in, just don’t exhale CO2 – Lisa might get you for pollution.

    “Dropped solar flares” – only in your back pocket J.B.
    GCR’s – you better believe in them as an influence on weather and climate ( Yes I do realise different time periods, so you don’t have to waffle on ) – there are now thousands of scientists that have or are studying GCR’s and CR’s, now including those at NASA, excluding Hansen and crew.

    Question #1 Why do you think that there is many neutron monitors around the planet, including big fellas like Project Icecube @ Scott-Amundsen base, South Pole ?
    Sure isn’t to count CO2 molecules.

    Question #2 IN OUR OWN WORDS, what do you want the planet to do about CO2,and especially why ?

    Awaiting your ad homs.

    • john byatt says:

      The planet is warming up, fact
      that is due to GHG’s , fact
      that is due to human fossil fuel use, fact

      now if you have some crazy notion that the planet is warming due to GCR, solar flares or some other ratbag theory then put up or shut up

      Roy Spencer to Miskolczi,, you have no theory, no science , no maths and no observations that support your claims so how can you make those claims

      Miskolczi to roy spencer …. Guess!

  33. JeffT says:

    There you go again John Byatt,
    “if you want to at least get a bit of knowledge on the subject of GCR
    then “muoncounter” a scientist that studies that is one of the mods mat skeptical science ”

    Used the words Skeptical Science, (John Cook and UWA experts)
    Similar effect that the words Heartland Institute would have on you.
    S.S. would be the last place on earth I’d look for an intelligent, unbiased scientific source of information.

    I do have “real”sources, that’s not from wonkers. ( Spelling mistake )

  34. john byatt says:

    approved for publication at TCS, Geoff still could not help himself though

    Anonymous said…
    This will be a great letter from Leon for my reply
    “the tragedy of the commons” article that i have been working on, great Leon hope it gets up ,

    cheers

    john byatt
    March 15, 2011 7:30 AM

  35. JeffT says:

    Wrong, John ad hom Byatt.
    I don’t use Science Daily.
    Next guess from you.
    See if you can make another foolish guess.

    JT

  36. john byatt says:

    Tom woods

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

    The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum,” said Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. “The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.”

    believe that 2013 may now be the year

  37. john byatt says:

    found what jefft had posted with some cryptic comment ,

    this Tom Woods
    LASP / University of Colorado

    now what the hell are you on about?

  38. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    There you go again – repeat, repeat.
    I posted 2x versions of standards, one of the from the Engineers Toolbox verbatim.
    And you bitch and carry on.

    You do know why the Republicans want to stop the US EPA from classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and don’t play it’s to do with pollution, I don’t think your THAT stupid.
    You also know that it is an alternate way to bypass the rejection of various carbon trading bills in the Senate – Waxman, Markey – Kerry, Lieberman, and various other versions that they have tried to get through.
    Classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and the Clean Air Act then makes it controllable.
    You may have heard of the EPA scientist Alan Carlin. If not check him out on his own web page.
    Someone else for you to ad hom.
    JT

    • john byatt says:

      jefft again you are all over the place on this , look at the post above and try to concentrate, TOO many late night iceflow videos?

      we now seem to have dropped solar flares and GCR’s and gone back to CO2, read my post engineers toolbox is where i found the original info and followed from there
      it states that above 2500ppm can have health effects, health effects are bad jefft

      whats the bet that he will continue down this path and then twenty posts later come up with another n mention of solar flares and GCR’s that have not been addressed ,

      make your point jefft you are losing the plot here

      • JeffT says:

        John Byatt,
        In response to your:
        “we now seem to have dropped solar flares and GCR’s and gone back to CO2,”
        Wrong John Byatt, you can waffle along all you like about CO2 and all the dreadful events your lot can hang off that paradigm.
        My only point in mentioning CO2 is to show IT ISN’T ANYTHING DIFFERENT than what paleogeology, geology and history shows.
        In fact I really don’t care about how much CO2 you breath in, just don’t exhale CO2 – Lisa might get you for pollution.

        “Dropped solar flares” – only in your back pocket J.B.
        GCR’s – you better believe in them as an influence on weather and climate ( Yes I do realise different time periods, so you don’t have to waffle on ) – there are now thousands of scientists that have or are studying GCR’s and CR’s, now including those at NASA, excluding Hansen and crew.

        Question #1 Why do you think that there is many neutron monitors around the planet, including big fellas like Project Icecube @ Scott-Amundsen base, South Pole ?
        Sure isn’t to count CO2 molecules.

        Question #2 IN OUR OWN WORDS, what do you want the planet to do about CO2,and especially why ?

        Awaiting your ad homs.

  39. john byatt says:

    brought jeffs last post down here it was about 50 comments ago

    JeffT (10:21:31) :
    John Byatt is still stuck in the hate Hans Schreuter groove.
    Doesn’t matter how many times you tell him. He keeps on ‘bringing it up’.

    And he must have liked my “äll that white” description about the snow and ice cover viewed on Modis – Aqua and Terra satellites, he keeps repeating it.
    John still thinks the Arctic is no more than 50 years old, no such thing as history for our warmista friend, because if he did realise it, it may contradict his warmista obscurantic rhetoric.

    Dictionary – obscurantic :- a person or thing that obscures, esp. one that opposes or tends to prevent human progress and enlightenment.

    Must be how he responds because of that terribly high CO2 level he is breathing in. ( It’s a joke Joyce ).

    John also side stepped the Solar flare and GCR comment. Too hard ? And it might go against his obscurantism with carbon dioxide. Maybe he can’t find enough to cut and paste from Really Scary Climax.
    JT

    • john byatt says:

      John Byatt is still stuck in the hate Hans Schreuter groove.
      Doesn’t matter how many times you tell him. He keeps on ‘bringing it up’.

      Jeff that was a direct reference with your hans post quoted

      And he must have liked my “äll that white” description about the snow and ice cover viewed on Modis – Aqua and Terra satellites, he keeps repeating it.

      i had to go a way back above your post to even find mention of it

      John still thinks the Arctic is no more than 50 years old,

      another childish strawman

      his warmista obscurantic rhetoric.

      a silly ad hom

      Must be how he responds because of that terribly high CO2 level he is breathing in. ( It’s a joke Joyce ).

      caught out as a dope so jumps to the left but still does not have a clue what he is talking about

      John also side stepped the Solar flare and GCR comment.

      what solar flare comment? just mentioning it or actually posting some science

      if you want to at least get a bit of knowledge on the subject of GCR
      then “muoncounter” a scientist that studies that is one of the mods mat skeptical science

      jefft you really need to see someone that can get you the professional help that you require,

      no wonder they have to ban people at JG to try to save face before you make a complete fool of yourself as you are doing here

      ,

    • john byatt says:

      jeff thad actually gone back 78 comments to post the 10. 43. 47 comment

  40. john byatt says:

    Wonder why the replublicans are trying to stop EPA regulating CO2 emissions,

    EPA pollution control

    Inadequate Ventilation and High CO2 Levels
    Inadequate Ventilation and High CO2 Levels. Does your room feel stuffy? … Some individuals are sensitive to CO2 levels as low as 600 ppm so action may …

  41. john byatt says:

    ADHOM ALERT

    ‘I honestly believe that i could get more sense out of my lounge chair than these two

    apologies to lounge chair for ad hom

  42. john byatt says:

    So there is another standard that you will know more about than the engineers.

    strawman,

    where did you think my claim come from ? engineers toobox to start with

  43. john byatt says:

    More ad hom

    Aha, John Byatt suffers from low tolerance to CO2 syndrome.
    Been hyperventilating lately John? ( mostly all the time )

    is this all you have got ad hom?

    • john byatt says:

      Its not low tolerance to CO2

      at least read first before posting

      ‘Hidden hyperventilation’, or overbreathing affects the entire body, because oxygen and carbon dioxide are required by every single cell

      When the loss of carbon dioxide is increased due to excessive breathing, the supply of oxygen to every part of the body is restricted, and it no longer functions as efficiently as it should. This may lead to disease or ill-health.

  44. john byatt says:

    correct to DS Robertson

  45. john byatt says:

    Jefft ” acceptable levels: < 600 ppm

    stuffy room source, science richardson above,

    * general drowsiness: 1000 – 2500 ppm

    adverse health effects expected: 2500 – 5000 ppm

    so adverse health effects expected above 2500ppm and many people can not even tolerate that, you accept the 2500ppm figure then still calm that is not a pollution

    richardson subjected people to different levels of CO2 then recorded heart rates , pulse BP etc, the level that created physical problems that one could endure without ill effects maximum whole of life dose was 426PPM above that then many people would during their life be showing health problems

    20% of population would be very sensitive, Jeff and geoffs grandchildren perhaps, they don't care

    have been following richardson for a long time ,

    what level do you consider safe for lifetime exposure, ridley believes that it is 80,000ppm

    bit strange, "where is your science stuffy room. "

    when you post the science, cut and paste, cut and paste

  46. JeffT says:

    Aha, John Byatt suffers from low tolerance to CO2 syndrome.
    Been hyperventilating lately John? ( mostly all the time )

    If you breath into a paperbag, for a few breaths, will reduce your hyperventilation.

    Oh that’s right, you’ve been specially bred not to exhale CO2. But the average adult exhales 4000ppm CO2

    What ever you may reckon, the OH & S information and AS5034 stands.
    ———————————————————–
    From engineering standards, air-conditioning industry design reference:

    The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized:

    * normal outdoor level: 350 – 450 ppm
    * acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
    * complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 – 1000 ppm
    * ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
    * general drowsiness: 1000 – 2500 ppm
    * adverse health effects expected: 2500 – 5000 ppm
    * maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm

    The levels above are quite normal and maximum levels may occasionally happen from time to time.
    ———————————————————-
    So there is another standard that you will know more about than the engineers.

    Check out Wikipedia – Carbon Dioxide – sub -Toxicity.

    Show us your "stuffy room" source.

    JT

  47. john byatt says:

    This is interesting, stuffy room syndrome occurs when CO2 level reaches 600ppm
    if you are in the room as the level rises then you will not notice it
    if you leave the room for a while then return you will notice that it is stuffy,

    when outdoor levels reach 600ppm then indoor levels will be so high that A/C will be required to reduce indoor CO2 levels to well below that

    you will be working all day in a low CO2 air level then when you leave work and go outside you will find that the world is stuffy,

    great to look forward to ,NOT

  48. john byatt says:

    geoff “How’s your post answert mine above it!

    My state NSW says your post is …..

    You did not give a reason you gave …..

    Same word fills both sets of dots. Clue 2 syllables 1st cattle 2nd excrement.

    got some bad news for you geoff

    my post below yours on your blog looks like i am replying to your pollution post with an indoor air quality post , you lose again

    tough

  49. john byatt says:

    Jefft

    Are you sure you haven’t got those gases confused s well John B. ?
    JT

    strawman claim

  50. john byatt says:

    Geoff

    Same word fills both sets of dots. Clue 2 syllables 1st cattle 2nd excrement.

    ad hom alert

    hypocrite

  51. john byatt says:

    Here geoff you can learn something about maximum operating time for levels of subs, 24hour 1week and three months by going to us navy operations

    then you can read a bit iof science on the subject here, your claim that CO2 is not a pollutant is a crock,

    warning SCIENCE not geoffs blog bog

    [PDF] Health effects of increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in …
    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    by DS Robertson – 2006 – Cited by 8 – Related articles
    25 Jun 2006 … CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 90, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2006. 1608. Figure 1. Change in blood pH with rising … creased levels of carbon dioxide and not a lifetime expo- … level of 426 ppm. The value is also above the 600 ppm …
    http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf – Simila

  52. JeffT says:

    Aha, John Byatt,
    didn’t make the comparison with too much of anything can be injurious to health.
    Too much water can be dangerous, as stated. excessive water intake or water intoxication can result in kidney failure ( PubMed )
    Too much CO2 can be dangerous – it’s classed as oxygen deprivation, by definition from Australian OH&S, Australian Standard AS5034.
    This is in reference to the beverage industry, compressed CO2 gas and alarms.
    Your much hyped 391ppm = .0391% atmospheric CO2 level.
    OH&S standards limits from:-
    0.5% or 5,000ppm CO2 to
    3.0% or 30,000ppm CO2
    The level that can be reached in a non air-conditioned office, or cellar bar with average level of patrons,
    0.8% or 8,000ppm CO2
    Submarine levels at a similar standard ~8,000pm
    Too much CO2 can be deadly, from operating a gas fire in an enclosed room, but CO could also be an additive factor, as it is poisonous, with toxicity to central nervous system and heart at levels of 100ppm.

    Are you sure you haven’t got those gases confused s well John B. ?
    JT

    • john byatt says:

      You are talking about levels that can be reached, not ideal levels, subs do not operate at those high levels, they operate at normal levels but if during wartime operations they are required to then they can go to these maximum levels for set periods , ie is after their time is up they have to reduce levels or surface, not a good idea in war

  53. Geoff Brown says:

    How’s your post answert mine above it!

    My state NSW says your post is …..

    You did not give a reason you gave …..

    Same word fills both sets of dots. Clue 2 syllables 1st cattle 2nd excrement.

    • john byatt says:

      Air toxics and indoor air quality in Australia – State of …
      16 Sep 2009 … Ensuring that indoor air quality is of an acceptable standard presents a … levels of indoor carbon dioxide exhaled by occupants below 1000 ppm. ….. indoor workplace health and safety guidelines are referenced only when … In 1998, the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council agreed that …
      http://www.environment.gov.au › … › Publications › Air quality – Cached – Similar
      Air toxics and indoor air quality in Australia – State of …
      30 Jun 2010 … AAQ: ambient air quality; ABS: Australian Bureau of …
      environment.gov.au › … › Publications › Air quality – Cached – Similar
      Show more results from environment.gov.au
      [PDF] Health and Safety in the Office
      File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
      The ACT Occupational Health and Safety Act 1989, aims to protect the health, safety and …. amounts of fresh air can cause high levels of CO2. Stale air due to ….. indoor-air quality. Australian Standard 1680.2.0 – 1990 Interior lighting Part 2.0 – … Government Bookshops. Please check with the Bookshops before …
      .gov.au/…/pdfs/…/health_and_safety_in_the_office.pdf -

  54. john byatt says:

    I had to give geoff a reason to put my TCS post up, i did and he put it up,

    hows your brain geoff ?

  55. john byatt says:

    Look Look jefft used an ad hom,,,,,,, Greenpeas

    hypocrite

    • JeffT says:

      Protecting Greenpeace now are you J.B. ?
      That I wouldn’t be surprised at that.
      Now how would you defend Greenpeace’s use of the graphic pictures from WTC 911 aircraft bombings to imprint an emotional but damaging episode on the public to get their propaganda across.

      Hence Greenpeas. I have no respect for them, I also don’t support piracy on the high seas – for any reason, and I don’t side with Japanese whalers.
      Hypocrite ? Hmmm.

      “Jefft, “it means zilch that the last four years has seen both NW and NE passages open”.

      Cherry picking again John B.
      NE passage has been used by the Russians during the summer thaw for a considerable time. They run freighters with icebreaker escorts.
      The NW passage was open, just, for about a day last thaw, as I watched a yacht – trying to prove a point – hole up in Resolute Bay, Nunavit, Canada until they got an icebreaker as company. There was a blocked passage to the west of Resolute Bay settlement.
      I watched that on webcam as well, while they were berthed in Resolute.
      Oh yes I’ll add some laughter at using webcams, just for you John.

      Look for data of severe ice cover loss in 1922, 1956, 1959. changes in seal numbers and whaling. Drastic changes in fish catches.
      There is at least another in the 20th century around 1913-15.
      I also think there was a tie up with excess thawing and the iceberg flow that sunk the Titanic, as the icebergs were way too South – 600kms SE of the tip of Nova Scotia.
      Other records from 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818. whalers records.
      I have read the archived newspaper articles on Wayback Machine or Trove.
      This is because of my curiosity, so I don’t archive the articles.

      Unprecedented ? Hmmm.
      1946 Henry Larsen, 46 days sailing from Halifax Nova Scotia to Vancouver, British Columbia.
      1959 USCG cutter Storis circumnavigates the American continent
      1969 Oil tanker vessel Manhattan crosses NE passage, considered uneconomical for oil transport. Resulted in the building of the Alaska pipeline.
      History tells us a lot J.B. , and history is more than 20 year old.

      JT

      • john byatt says:

        How can one debate a brain like jefft when he considers that the NE and NW passages being open for fours years straight now to be a cherry pick

        denial ?

        Northwestern Passages.[3]
        Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable.[4][5][6][7] However, the contested sovereignty claims over the waters may complicate future shipping through the region: The Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters,[8] but the United States and various European countries maintain they are an international strait or transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage.[9][10]

        now they are exploring for oil so they can drill wells,

        total and complete denial of all empirical evidence ,

  56. JeffT says:

    John B.
    Still cherry picking conveniently.
    Get the whole picture, or is this how warmers do their statistics – cherry pick the data ?
    Why didn’t you use specific dates, then you could gain more effect.
    Check the individual day totals, you will see there are various troughs, and various peaks around the range.
    Cherry picked empirical data is still cherry picked data.
    Other factors come into play – check the Russian NP-37, and now NP-38. Ice drift, wind direction, chill factor, cloud cover.

    Warning, John Byatt, Warning – The following is an example, not to be confused by John Byatt, it is a word picture, as we don’t have graphics so I can draw you a picture.

    What you are alluding too is the same as saying Jan 21 2007 was not as hot as Jan 21 2011. It means zilch.
    Particularly when the warmistas keep telling me ‘that’s weather JeffT, it’s not climate’.
    A month period comparison is not climate either, just two points in a larger picture.
    JT

    • john byatt says:

      Jefft, “it means zilch that the last four years has seen both NW and NE passages open
      it means ziclh that ice extent minimum for feb 2011 equaled the previous feb record set in 2005

      why, cause i say so, and i watch videos of ice flowing backwards and forwards till 4am every day “

  57. john byatt says:

    Jefft

    On sea ice, taking bits of the whole –
    Tell that to John Byatt, who took a part of the whole by quoting Feb. dates, Feb 2005 and Feb 2011.
    The peaks and troughs are fairly predictable, a couple of days anomolies doesn’t mean much.

    JeffT the record low feb ice extent , for feb Jefft, was set in 2005, that has been now equaled in 2011,

    This is not picking a bit of data, this is empirical evidence

  58. john byatt says:

    no geoff you could probably put up bricks falling on your head as pollution using your illogical comment , we are talking about air pollution defined by health and safety ,

    “By your definition of CO2 LEVEL being a pollutant, then we can also assume water comes into that category. Too much consumed will kill you, too high a level and you will drown.:”

    No Geoff there is no health and safety air quality requirement , it is assumed that the old pensioners in care homes will not be put in underwater rooms or those filled with cyanide gas

    that was a rather silly response,

    would not even bother responding to it on your blog, whack your reply up and show everyone your absurd understanding of air pollution

  59. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    By your definition of CO2 LEVEL being a pollutant, then we can also assume water comes into that category. Too much consumed will kill you, too high a level and you will drown.
    I expected a rubbish response from J.B. in regard to the link to the Zhang paper on Springerlink – and I got it. I wouldn’t have expected anything more from B3.

    Another B comes out from the closet.
    G’day rossbrisbane (B2),
    You wrote:
    “JeffT – we all know you want to be booted off like some martyr. Stop playing games. You are a guest here – be more civil.”

    Wrong as usual rossbrisbane, I have no ambition to be booted off from any site. And I would expect some civility from whoever I communicate with.
    Read the whole thread, including the last couple by John Byatt.

    You should observe the garbage being posted by John Byatt, before you scold me.

    How does John Byatt know as he claims it is ‘garbage from Piers (Corbyn)’
    Considering some of the references used by him – DeSmog, Real Climate, Deltoid and John Cook’s Skeptical Science, I shouldn’t be surprised at his conclusions – but you lot take these verbatim.

    On sea ice, taking bits of the whole –
    Tell that to John Byatt, who took a part of the whole by quoting Feb. dates, Feb 2005 and Feb 2011.
    The peaks and troughs are fairly predictable, a couple of days anomolies doesn’t mean much.

    Buddy, I chart this bluudy stuff, using data from IARC-JAXA, which allows me to see trends. So go and instruct Mr Byatt in the art of reading tea leaves.

    I also stated that I use webcams to watch ice – from Alaskan/US airfields, from Great Lake areas of Canada, coastal areas of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, Svalbard (Spitzbergen) etc. to see real time, usually updated 30secs to 5mins to correlate with what I see on charts.
    Want to see the real ice cover in Bering Strait – that’s how you do it, check out the airfields that are closed to ice and snow, that also is how you do it unless you like travel.

    Your little friend, Johnny Byatt thinks it funny, particularly when I added I get in the poo for staying up till 3-4am to see these areas as they become daylit.

    I’d like to know exactly how the other members of this site check facts such as sea ice.
    JT

  60. john byatt says:

    hehe , now geoff has to put my post up ,,, sorry about that geoff ,

  61. john byatt says:

    THE CLIMATE KLEPTICS, Stealing their grandchildren’s future , its been catching on around the blogs ,

    • Geoff Brown says:

      Stealing their Grandchildren’s future by denying them essential to life CO2.

    • JeffT says:

      John Byatt is now directing how to start a post:
      “:Just start off posting with WARMING or COOLING so as not to confuse”
      If it confuses you I’ll start with “aadvark” and work up from there.

      It is a bit different to the Greenpeas and others “plea” of “Think of your children and your children’s children ” – using emotional blackmail when appealing for more involvement in “carbon” reduction and consequently carbon pricing.

      “Stealing your grandchildren’s future ” is more to the point if they become loaded down with the disasterous carbon (dioxide) scams.
      Think of the debt this will incur upon them, possibly for generations.
      dictionary – incur :To acquire or come into (something usually undesirable);
      Ask yourself why we have a branch of Generation Investment Management LLC in Sydney and why we have continual Al Gore and The Climate Project connections in Australia – as they say “Follow the money ”
      JT

      • john byatt says:

        Poor jefft now he cannot say big fat Al gore and show himself as a hypocrite,

        i can still say Fib Vorves though cause i did not object to your ad-homs

        have you got any science that lays a finger on AGW jefft ?

        please use my suggestion,,, WARMING COOLING though

        eg temps are a scam, that would be a cooling

        the planet is warming due to magic that would be a warming,

        you will get the hang of it

      • JeffT says:

        Yes John Byatt,
        I was identifying Gore’s G.I.M. LLC and Gore’s The Climate Project.

        Out with that brown paper bag John, and breathe deeply in and out of it a few times.
        Reduces your hyperventilation.
        See – free first aid information for you.

  62. Geoff Brown says:

    Are you really as thick as you pretend to be John Byatt?

    “this is a post that was not put up, why? becuase it destroys there premise that CO2 is not a pollutant”

    As previously stated, the only comments (not posts Juhn, do you understand the difference?) that I didn’t approve were under the name of “john byatt who was banned from jg why”

    If you want to take up your difference with JG, do it with them. If you wish to posts on the TCS blog, all posts that follower your chief denier, Mike’s rules will be published.

    No ad homs, no rudeness, always be polite. Mike, on a later post said:

    Ground rules:

    * keep it polite
    * no abuse

    Don’t try to use stupid childish terms like kleptics, you just make yourself look foolish.

    • john byatt says:

      Rubbish geoff that was my posting heading, as you say nothing to do with you, just done to show how you cannot handle real debate there, mark cut you off at the knees though and he only spent an hour on it ,

      i demand that both Geffs remain here ,

      geoff can take the climate keptics side of its cooling , heading into an ice age

      and Jeff can take the climate kleptics side of its warming due to something or other but no idea really

      you can alternate between the two if you desire,

      just start off posting with WARMING or COOLING so as not to confuse

  63. john byatt says:

    re The climate kleptics blog,

    this is a post that was not put up, why? becuase it destroys there premise that CO2 is not a pollutant

    john byatt (20:53:33) :
    Why i failed Geoff’s question ” is CO2 a pollutant” without even mentioning GHG’s

    If you go to any Government site and search HEALTH AND SAFETY, indoor air quality, you will find that limits for carbon dioxide concentrations are given for nursing homes, school rooms, hospital wards and places of work, you may say they are high in some cases but in setting limits then CO2 is by definition a pollutant ,

    , Fraud from the Kleptics as usual, cannot face up to debate, jeffT tells us garbage from Piers, up playing videos of sea ice flowing back and forth all night to the concern of his own wife,
    one minute on the its warming due to magic

    then back to its cooling without even thinking about what he is posting,

    then you whinge when i give you some great health advice, ” get professional help”

  64. Ross Brisbane says:

    JeffT – we all know you want to be booted off like some martyr. Stop playing games. You are a guest here – be more civil.

    As for sea ice – taking bits of the whole is like trying to read the dregs of your teacup. Take the bit you want and start your own practice of tea readings of the science.

    A man’s mind is made not by the “bread” of yesterday but by the “bread” gathered today.

  65. john byatt says:

    tell Fib Vorves that the reply to another of his moronic letters may be in the paper this week

  66. john byatt says:

    so now jefft is back to its warming but its the sun?

    geoff you can also find a link between earthquakes and the rise of obesity in the USA.

    the Warming is AGW , get with the science ,

  67. JeffT says:

    G’day Geoff B.

    As you would know, as I’m as thick as brick, with a skin as thick as a rhino, these taunts don’t worry me much, except it does waste time.

    It is fun to see how far warmistas will go – but the there was 10-10 wasn’t there. “No pressure ! ”
    I just want to see B3 sink in his own mucky quicksand – going ,going , gone.

    It will be interesting to see if the moderator/owner of “watching the deniers – in a mirror ” (WtD-M) does anything, besides moderating me off.
    Cheers
    JT

  68. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,

    Back to the subject – sort of –
    You continue to criticise Piers Corbyn – no, in a John Byatt way, you continue to bag him,
    I try to show the sun’s influence on the weather and long term – climate, but of course I’m also bagged by John Byatt – Sheez, there is a correlation there.

    But an extract from Springerlink on the influence of the sun on tectonic plate movement by Gui-Qing Zhang gives another slant to the sun’s influences, creating earthquake and volcanic actions.
    What influences does this have on weather and climate ?
    Of course I could ask Piers Corbyn, as it is part of his brief.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/buvw2tq081013210/fulltext.pdf?page=1

    I expect a rubbish response in keeping with the rest of the thread.
    Surprise me.

  69. Geoff Brown says:

    JeffT

    The chief Denier of this “watching (BY) the Deniers” blog, Mike, set some rules
    reporduced here – http://tiny.cc/dglqo. Mr Byatt’s schoolboy like taunts of “Fool, kleptic, goon, born thick, Fiv Vorbes” break these rules. No Ad homs, No rudeness, always be Polite. I think Mike should be enforcing his own rules.

    • john byatt says:

      tell Fib Vorves that he reply to another of his moronic letters may be in the paper this week

    • john byatt says:

      Go – effs rules for his blog, “if i can’t answer the post, i just do not put it up, “

  70. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    A case of:-
    “All the worlds mad except thee and me, and I have doubts about thee”

    John, have you noticed a trend in your posts ?
    Continuous use of:-
    Fool, kleptic, goon, born thick, Fiv Vorbes,
    and the innuendo -great fun mass debating himself.

    Put it all together and you have – John Byatt and a case.
    I believe they prescribe lithium for your particular case.
    Maybe that’s the reason you have to take your nuts to Dr James Hansen –
    Physics, mathematics, astronomy, yes that should fix your case.

    Why don’t you stick to the subject – Oh that’s right, the thread is titled:
    “the denial machine keeps on cranking ”
    Which apparently translates from the alarmist, warmist language as:
    “bag, abuse, ad hom everyone and everything that isn’t covered by the Green Koolaide brigade”.

    Now you know why not only moderators on Just Grounds took action, but were requested to do so by many members (that by the way didn’t include me). You, were referred to as one of the “B’s”, to be exact, as “B3″, the extra Banana in “Banana’s in Pyjamas”.
    Now be a good boy and get your script filled.
    J

  71. Moderator Mike-
    This post breaks your rules – are you going to censor it, or is it OK for your own denier team to break your own rules?

  72. john byatt says:

    Local goon John (Climate kelptics Party} Leal , advocating wasting power, A/C etc by letters in the sunshine coast daily, was just chewed up and spat out by a reply from the sunshine coast Green candidate Bronwyn Bell .

    This guy has been making a total fool of himself , much like Jefft and Go-eff himself

  73. john byatt says:

    Jeff IF you had read my post correctly, I specifically said I used PIPS 2.0, set for ice flow, run several dates over the period, and then they can be run forward or backward to see the ice flow, without waiting for updates.
    Simple John, simple. Or should that be just simple John ?
    JT,,

    you need expert help fella

  74. john byatt says:

    My STATEMENT

    “Arctic sea ice extent for February 2011 tied with February 2005 as the lowest recorded in the satellite record. Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence. In contrast, winter snow cover remained extensive in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere.”

    jeff claims

    The data from IARC – JAXA does not equate to your statement. The entry to the Gulf of St Lawrence had more sea ice in 2005, but less elsewhere.

    Were you born thick ?

    the entry to the gulf of st Lawrence had more sea ice in 2005 but less elswhere

    does not contradict

    Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence {2011}

    sheesh

  75. JeffT says:

    Oh yes, I did ask your expert opinion about the change of ice flow direction shown on PIPS 2.0 – 17 th to 22nd Feb 2011.
    Apparently you don’t have an expert opinion.
    Or you can’t find an expert’s opinion to cut and paste.

    Too busy trying to bag me, playing word games and semantics.
    JT

  76. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    Yes you do need your nuts checked, go consult with Dr James Hansen.
    Oh please go and consult with Hansen.

    And you don’t or can’t read can you ? Dyslexic ?

    From that particular post of mine:

    The data from IARC – JAXA does not equate to your statement. The entry to the Gulf of St Lawrence had more sea ice in 2005, but less elsewhere.

    February 2011 is not the peak of the sea ice, mid March is where I would do a comparison, as it can vary around it’s peak due to other factors such as wind strength and direction.
    (ie you look at the peak or the trough, compare the dates, compare the area covered. – Not just cherry pick your favorite date.)

    From your bit above:
    1 Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence. 2011

    2,the Gulf of St Lawrence had more sea ice in 2005

    Is there an echo around here John B. ?
    If I’m contradictory, so are you – not good at this are you John B. ?

    And a smart ass as well:
    “good lord i think that he watches ice flowing on web cams as well”

    IF you had read my post correctly, I specifically said I used PIPS 2.0, set for ice flow, run several dates over the period, and then they can be run forward or backward to see the ice flow, without waiting for updates.
    Simple John, simple. Or should that be just simple John ?
    JT

  77. john byatt says:

    Jefft

    “Arctic sea ice extent for February 2011 tied with February 2005 as the lowest recorded in the satellite record. Sea ice extent was“Arctic sea ice extent for February 2011 tied with February 2005 as the lowest recorded in the satellite record. Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence. In contrast, winter snow cover remained extensive in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere.”
    The data from IARC – JAXA does not equate to your statement. The entry to the Gulf of St Lawrence had more sea ice in 2005, but less elsewhere.. In contrast, winter snow cover remained extensive in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere.”
    The data from IARC – JAXA does not equate to your statement. The entry to the Gulf of St Lawrence had more sea ice in 2005, but less elsewhere.

    1 Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence. 2011

    2,the Gulf of St Lawrence had more sea ice in 2005

    to Jeff’s brain those two statements are contradictory ,

    not good at this are you jeffT

  78. john byatt says:

    Jefft

    “Arctic sea ice extent for February 2011 tied with February 2005 as the lowest recorded in the satellite record. Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence. In contrast, winter snow cover remained extensive in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere.”
    The data from IARC – JAXA does not equate to your statement. The entry to the Gulf of St Lawrence had more sea ice in 2005, but less elsewhere.

  79. JeffT says:

    Answer to a question posed on the head page of this thread:-

    “Why does US Senator Inhofe resort to using an enterprising fiction writer, Michael Crichton, as an expert witness before his Environment and Public Works Committee?”

    If the writer of this page looked into the subject Michael Crichton, he would find a person that before he wrote a novel on a science based story, he would intensely study the subject.
    Crichton was an M.D. an apparent very intelligent person, who wrote as a pastime. He is now deceased.
    I studied Crichton, watched his lectures and gleaned as much info on him before I started reading his novels. The last was “Climate of Fear”, which was based on his considerable knowledge not only of climate science, but the machinations of the green element, political and associated industries.
    This casual dismissal of Crichton is in about the same vein that Hilary Rodham Clinton took in a Congressional hearing, and that isn’t good company.
    JT

    • john byatt says:

      for god sake don’t tell people that you think Crichton is intelligent you will ruin any credibility the book might have had ,

      Next time i need my nuts checked i will go and see a climatologist

  80. JeffT says:

    More from John Byatt,
    “The Arctic Dipole Anomaly is an emerging pattern of climate change in the Arctic Atmosphere. It has a role in enhancing the changes in the region’s climate by aiding sea-ice loss. Furthermore it may have a role in some extreme weather events throughout the wider northern hemisphere.”

    So might changes in sea ice flows – check PIPS 2.0 archive, on daily access over the Feb 1 thru’ Feb 20. – set them up and the you can page forward and backward – but you knew that eh ?
    Sudden change of direction in the 17th – 20th.
    Your the expert, you should be able to correlate that with something.
    JT

    • john byatt says:

      atmospheric circulation Jefft, not gravity

      [1] Arctic sea-ice area from Cryosphere Today:
      [2] Wu et al [2] Dipole Anomaly in the Winter Arctic Atmosphere and Its Association with Sea Ice Motion. Bingyi Wu et al, Journal of Climate, 15/1/06
      [3] Zhang et al [3] Recent radical shifts of atmospheric circulations and rapid changes in Arctic climate system. Xiandong Zhang et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 2008.
      [4] NSIDC Sea Ice News 7/9/10.
      [5] Stu Ostro at TWC, here.

      sorry if you think science is blogs

      good lord i think that he watches ice flowing on web cams as well

  81. JeffT says:

    You overcome everything with some form of ad hom, don’t you John Byatt ?
    eg.
    “Look at the name of the thread that jefft is cranking on
    “The denial machine keeps on cranking” how apt :”

    Well it is a thread heading on Watch the Deniers that you seem so be prominent on. Is there a message there?

    Then you have another dig at Geoff Brown. – That’s not debate John B.

    Then another ad hom episode about Carbon Sense Coalition and Viv Forbes,
    whose probably got more qualifications and professional life experience, than you could muster in this lifetime.

    Then this very interesting statement from John Byatt:
    “Arctic sea ice extent for February 2011 tied with February 2005 as the lowest recorded in the satellite record. Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence. In contrast, winter snow cover remained extensive in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere.”
    The data from IARC – JAXA does not equate to your statement. The entry to the Gulf of St Lawrence had more sea ice in 2005, but less elsewhere.

    February 2011 is not the peak of the sea ice, mid March is where I would do a comparison, as it can vary around it’s peak due to other factors such as wind strength and direction.

    Having watched on webcam, the last commercial freighter dock in Duluuth before they closed the channel and the lift bridge earlier this year, not to be opened until about Mid March, due to icing up of the lake and seaway. I think you are wrong. – Just cutting and pasting from a warmist blog maybe ?

    I followed that up with the data from the Canadian Met, which gives up to date ice conditions in the Great Lakes and St Lawrence Seaway, and yes it was icing up. Some of the lakes were 9-10 to 10/10 ice.

    Then I have used live webcam pictures from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, to verify what I was seeing on the Canadian Met and Bremen, and yes it was icing up. Some cameras were out of action due to the weather.

    My wife hates me looking up webcams, as it keeps me up very late. 3-4 am. But it is worth seeing empirical information.
    Stop using the blogs and go look for real information.
    JT

  82. john byatt says:

    NEWS RELEASE

    The no Sense Coalition today claimed that Australia and New Zealand were not in danger of becoming the green peasants of the Pacific.

    The Chairman of No Sense”, Mr Fib Vorves , said that the only way the two countries could achieve their unrealistic emissions targets was by quickly adapting to green technologies

  83. john byatt says:

    I would save everyone having to put up with your nonsense jefft by moving to TCS blog but whenever i go there my posts just don’t seem to make it,

    i gave go- eff himself a few trys but no go-eff himself has banned me again

    I is bad

    • I will not post your comments that have something about your being banned from JG in the name of the poster. I will not post anything that breaks the rules that Mike established here – although you lot see to abandon those rules with gay abandon

  84. john byatt says:

    Look at the name of the thread that jefft is cranking on

    “The denial machine keeps on cranking”

    how apt :

  85. john byatt says:

    hehehe jeff”Logically J.B. , Clarkson’s 3 ton Hilux didn’t fall THROUGH the sea ice, it would have turned into a deathtrap. ”

    yes falling through the ice a few times and sinking to the bottom would have been a bit of a bummer .

    thank god jeff explained that

  86. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    You must forgive my sarcasm, it’s a rebound effect.

    Back to real data:
    AMSU-A, on NOAA-15
    SST 11/3/201 – .24degC colder than 11/3/2010

    14,000ft – Aqua platform
    11/3/2011 – .81degC colder than 11/3/2010
    Only 2x channels available due to technical problems.
    But at 2x sample points the temperature is down.
    Current data.

    Confusion over the difference between sea ice and snow John B. ????
    Snow has an extremely short life on the sea. I know what I’m reading, you apparently cannot –
    You wrote:
    “your confusing feb with march is also of some small merriment here”
    The small merriment being enjoyed must be by small minds, as the data/dates were directly from IARC-JAXA, easy to see when printed out and marked off. – FEBRUARY ???

    Logically J.B. , Clarkson’s 3 ton Hilux didn’t fall THROUGH the sea ice, it would have turned into a deathtrap. They did crack through the ice, driving in a manner, against the advice of officials and they were pulled out of the breakthrough. The vehicle and occupants made it to the NMP, was recovered and taken back to Canada.
    Maybe you should watch the video, and see some white stuff/snow/sea ice/ paint.

    Sheez, you quote some antique data.
    24 Jul 2003, next thing you’ll be quoting the Svante Arrhenius paper of 1896,
    Santer and Trenberth Mar 2004
    That must have been before Oct 2009.
    Comment on S & T : “The louder they scream, the colder it gets” in response to their “carbon dioxide piling up in the atmosphere ”
    Not mine, I just wish I would have thought of it.
    D.U.I. on Green Koolaide – maybe? The “D” indicating delusion.
    JT

    • john byatt says:

      sorry jefft i cannot make head nor tail what you are on about his time , i will attempt you major blunders as kindly as possible

      FEBRUARY???

      my post 21,02
      Jeff T “look at all that white”

      February Arctic ice extent ties 2005 for record low; extensive snow cover persists
      Arctic sea ice extent for February 2011 tied with February 2005 as the lowest recorded in the satellite record. Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence. In contrast, winter snow cover remained extensive in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

      looks like Jefft has his own version of greenhouse theory which does not include CO2

      This MODIS true color image is centered over North America with South America visible toward the bottom of the image and the snow and ice-covered Artic Circle at the top. The image is a composite of eight days of MODIS global coverage to remove cloud cover and sun glint effects, gathered during the last week in March 2000.

      Jefft “Comment on S & T : “The louder they scream, the colder it gets” in response to their “carbon dioxide piling up in the atmosphere ”
      Not mine, I just wish I would have thought of it.” jeff

      yep jeff is off the warming due to anything but co2 and back onto the its cooling heading into an ice age, he seems to be talking about some sort of blanket jeff ? re S&T comment ?

      as predicted he would

  87. john byatt says:

    Jeff has given us a quite a few guesses at what might be causing the current warming other than GHG’s

    now for something completely different , jeff is going to post some of his guesses why we are currently cooling towards an ice age,

    see The climate kleptics blog ..

    ,

  88. john byatt says:

    this is still in moderation due links, i will remove them here

    Jefft “From all these choices, you should be able to give us the actual position of the greenhouse glass “roof” that holds in the long wave radiation and reflects most of this thermal energy back down ( of course using one way molecular radiation LOL )
    How about convection, heated gases do rise, don’t they John ?

    Rising Height of Atmospheric Boundary Points to Human Impact on …
    24 Jul 2003 … It also provides evidence that temperatures are rising in the troposphere, the lowest layer in the atmosphere. The tropopause provides a …

    S&TR | March 2004: Tropopause Height Becomes Another Climate …
    3 Mar 2004 … “What we’re now seeing with the rising tropopause and warming troposphere is that many different aspects of the climate system are telling …

    ,

  89. john byatt says:

    Jefft you are becoming quite incoherent but i will try with what i can make some sense of.

    My comment about “all that white” as shown on Modis, seems to give you some amusement.

    yes , your confusion between sea ice and snow was very amusing

    your confusing feb with march is also of some small merriment here

    It fell through the ice a few times, classic

    denialist , temps have not warmed since 1998

    denialist , 2006/7 had lower sea ice cover. It was also known to be a warmer period.

    Jeff, “Or is it all that low temperature polar air is sliding off the big hill (Arctic).
    Gravity works vertically not sideways,”
    Congress yesterday, republicans pass bill to overturn the laws of physics,

    Democrat ” i object , i would rise but the republicans might also repeal the laws of gravity and id be floating around the hall

    The Arctic Dipole Anomaly is an emerging pattern of climate change in the Arctic Atmosphere. It has a role in enhancing the changes in the region’s climate by aiding sea-ice loss. Furthermore it may have a role in some extreme weather events throughout the wider northern hemisphere.

    Different atmospheric changes driven by ice loss in the Arctic may have a causal role in the cold winter of 2009/10 and in this winter (I’m fairly sure they do). I’ll post on that later.

    [1] Arctic sea-ice area from Cryosphere Today:
    [2] Wu et al [2] Dipole Anomaly in the Winter Arctic Atmosphere and Its Association with Sea Ice Motion. Bingyi Wu et al, Journal of Climate, 15/1/06
    [3] Zhang et al [3] Recent radical shifts of atmospheric circulations and rapid changes in Arctic climate system. Xiandong Zhang et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 2008.
    [4] NSIDC Sea Ice News 7/9/10.
    [5] Stu Ostro at TWC, here.

    your are good fun jefft

  90. john byatt says:

    Jefft “From all these choices, you should be able to give us the actual position of the greenhouse glass “roof” that holds in the long wave radiation and reflects most of this thermal energy back down ( of course using one way molecular radiation LOL )
    How about convection, heated gases do rise, don’t they John ?

    Rising Height of Atmospheric Boundary Points to Human Impact on …
    24 Jul 2003 … It also provides evidence that temperatures are rising in the troposphere, the lowest layer in the atmosphere. The tropopause provides a …
    http://www.ucar.edu › Communications › News Releases › 2003 – Cached – Similar
    S&TR | March 2004: Tropopause Height Becomes Another Climate …
    3 Mar 2004 … “What we’re now seeing with the rising tropopause and warming troposphere is that many different aspects of the climate system are telling …
    https://www.llnl.gov/str/March04/Santer.html – Cached – Simila

    ,

  91. john byatt says:

    I think, not sure with jefft but he may be on about what is sometimes termed the igloo effect, how could a cold igloo possible keep someone inside warm when its is made of ice ,, see roy spencer

    • JeffT says:

      Just plain stupid, John Byatt.
      I don’t have to ask Hans Schreuder because –
      The CO2 blanket reference comes from one of your compadres on WtD.
      It elicits great humour, as this bit of nonsense jargon has been around for yonks. At present it is being touted by one of the Gore followers from Climate Change Australia.
      Next bit of humour from the keyboard of John Byatt –
      “all the science followers here understand the movement of the polar air out over europe as the cause of the extra winter cold”
      (How about an absence of heat ? )
      Is this a version of Chicken Little’s “the sky is falling” -> sideways ?
      Or is it all that low temperature polar air is sliding off the big hill (Arctic).
      Gravity works vertically not sideways, John Byatt.
      What low temperature ? I was led to believe from reading around WtD there was a ‘consensus’ that the Arctic was melting and sea levels were going to rise by 6.7mtrs.
      My comment about “all that white” as shown on Modis, seems to give you some amusement.
      Well if it’s not one of your warmist mates out painting the roofs, streets etc with white paint, (another stupid idea from your European warmist cousins to raise the albedo of the earth ), it must be that other stuff – snow and ice.

      The sea ice data from IARC-JAXA indicates:-
      24/3/06 lowest maximum
      24/9/07 lowest minimum
      8/3/10 2nd highest maximum since 2005
      18/9/10 lower minimum than 2009
      Which then indicates only facts that everyone knows – 2006/7 had lower sea ice cover. It was also known to be a warmer period.

      You will class it as irrelevant, but 2007 is the year that the Top Gear team did the Resolute to magnetic North race with three tons of Toyota Hilux, across sea ice in part. It broke through the ice a few times, but there was ice there, and as it was sunshine, it would have had to be at least early NH Spring. – NH sea ice reaches it’s peak early/mid March.
      It is documented on film/video. That would make it empirical evidence.
      Sorry, it isn’t peer reviewed.

  92. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    “Blanket” John ?, a CO2 blanket even ?
    Pretty thin, leaky blanket isn’t it ?
    Sounds like a sound byte from Albert Gore.

    Where is the blanket situated John ? Ground level ? Tropsphere ? Stratosphere? Mesosphere ? Thermosphere ? Exosphere ?
    Or is CO2 distributed throughout the Atmosphere ?
    How about mixing, turbulent and chaotic systems John ?

    From all these choices, you should be able to give us the actual position of the greenhouse glass “roof” that holds in the long wave radiation and reflects most of this thermal energy back down ( of course using one way molecular radiation LOL )
    How about convection, heated gases do rise, don’t they John ?
    How about the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge (DAB ) that trails the sun’s illumination ? Another good thermal mixing pot.
    Lets not forget the clouds, low level, high level and non-condensed water vapour (up there with the aircraft contrails).
    You see, I’ve got a lot of questions that cannot be answered without referring to very biased sources.
    JT

    • john byatt says:

      You will have to ask your mate hans jeff its his baby, all the science followers here understand the movement of the polar air out over europe as the cause of the extra winter cold

      Jefft, ” we will make things up about what the warmists believe and then debate them on that’ aren’t we clever ?

  93. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    You show your limitations John. As long as you can cut and paste great tomes of CO2 as portrayed by the IPCC, your OK.
    State something that is different and you go off the rails, in some of your responses here, may I say unhinged.
    eg. Your snipe about Viv Forbes and CO2 being the source of our Oxygen.
    Must I explain photosynthesis to you ?
    Viv would be more suited to explain it technically,as he holds a BScApp (Batchelor of Applied Science), FAusIMM (Fellow of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy ) and FSIA, which from his C.V. appears to be Financial Services International (Australia).
    From Online Opinion –
    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=6558
    Of course John Byatt will continue to ad hom Forbes, and now I’ve included Online Opinion, gives John Byatt another target.
    But the fact remains, first there was CO2 in abundance along with vegetation, result gave plant growth, locking in carbon in plant structure as sugars. Oxygen was split from CO2 and released into the atmosphere.
    Same applies today, but now warmers want to “sequest” carbon dioxide.
    Bit stupid if you think about it, as it “sequests” two molecules of oxygen with the carbon.
    Goes with a lot of stupid ideas put forward about AGW by warmers.
    With climate experts such as Ross Garnaut and Nicholas Stern on your team, you lot have no excuse to rubbish Forbes.

    Now on the matter of my cohesion –
    You like to twist meanings, – interesting !
    I do not accept your version of greenhouse theory, but I notice that you use the word “theory” in your statement. ( theory – a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena )

    Your right, – general propositions, principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. – Well done.

    I do accept that there is a greenhouse effect. ie greenhouse gases, including water vapour, CO2, NO2 etc. pass solar energy and retain this heat energy partially as air surface temperature and mostly as heat stored in the oceans.

    Now do I have to rerun this past you every post, or is it in your head now ?

    Apparently !

    JT

    • john byatt says:

      John Byatt,
      You show your limitations John. As long as you can cut and paste great tomes of CO2 as portrayed by the IPCC, your OK.

      translation , I do not understand scientific papers , dont post them

      State something that is different and you go off the rails, in some of your responses here, may I say unhinged.

      jeff cannot help lack of cohesion

      eg. Your snipe about Viv Forbes and CO2 being the source of our Oxygen.
      Must I explain photosynthesis to you ?
      Viv would be more suited to explain it technically,as he holds a BScApp (Batchelor of Applied Science), FAusIMM (Fellow of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy ) and FSIA, which from his C.V. appears to be Financial Services International (Australia).
      From Online Opinion –
      http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=6558
      Of course John Byatt will continue to ad hom Forbes, and now I’ve included Online Opinion, gives John Byatt another target.
      But the fact remains, first there was CO2 in abundance along with vegetation, result gave plant growth, locking in carbon in plant structure as sugars. Oxygen was split from CO2 and released into the atmosphere.
      Same applies today, but now warmers want to “sequest” carbon dioxide.
      Bit stupid if you think about it, as it “sequests” two molecules of oxygen with the carbon.
      Goes with a lot of stupid ideas put forward about AGW by warmers.
      With climate experts such as Ross Garnaut and Nicholas Stern on your team, you lot have no excuse to rubbish Forbes.

      Forbes is a moron, wait the the reply Jefft

      Now on the matter of my cohesion –
      You like to twist meanings, – interesting !
      I do not accept your version of greenhouse theory, but I notice that you use the word “theory” in your statement. ( theory – a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena )

      Your right, – general propositions, principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. – Well done.

      Jefft accepts the theory but only his version , apparently my version, the science is not accepted by Jefft ” I do but i dont”

      I do accept that there is a greenhouse effect. ie greenhouse gases, including water vapour, CO2, NO2 etc. pass solar energy and retain this heat energy partially as air surface temperature and mostly as heat stored in the oceans.

      however i will finish off by saying that i accept your , science version

      Now do I have to rerun this past you every post, or is it in your head now ?

      JeffT “Then I might give some credence to CO2.”

      It seems that jefft must have great fun mass debating himself

  94. john byatt says:

    Jeffs ramble

    I do accept that there is a greenhouse effect. ie greenhouse gases, including water vapour, CO2, NO2 etc

    It does describe what you do with CO2 theories so well.

    See dictionary explanation of the word “theory”

    But getting back to John Byatt, who’s still worrying about CO2 increase

    Then I might give some credence to CO2.

    XXX
    from that you see that jeff can claim he accepts grrenhouse including CO2 but also reject it , he can cite himself for either position

    total lack of any cohesion

  95. john byatt says:

    Viv Forbes in the gympie times yesterdsy

    “CO2 is the source of our oxygen”

    Viv the gift that keeps on giving”

    you will have to wait for the reply Jefft, elizebeth will probably send it though

    .

  96. john byatt says:

    Jeff T “look at all that white”

    February Arctic ice extent ties 2005 for record low; extensive snow cover persists
    Arctic sea ice extent for February 2011 tied with February 2005 as the lowest recorded in the satellite record. Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence. In contrast, winter snow cover remained extensive in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

    looks like Jefft has his own version of greenhouse theory which does not include CO2

    has no understnding of the carbon cycle , believes that fossil fuel is not responsible but human breath is

    Hans might be right after all, the warmer camp is now telling us the cooling is caused by the warming, which is caused by the CO2 “blanket”.
    yet it is Hans, that believes that, a denialist

    “At his blog this is posted
    NEW PAPER EXPOSES GREENHOUSE GAS FUNCTIONING: . . . they COOL the atmosphere!”

    the rest is pure twaddle Jefft

    your very own greenhouse theory , done a Don Tolman course?,

    you are really going downhill now Jefft , take a couple of deep breaths fella

    ,After denying that the arctic has been in a summer nose dive for the past four years now Jeff believes that it is a normal event

    seems like you have your own reality for that also ?

    • JeffT says:

      John Byatt is still stuck in the hate Hans Schreuter groove.
      Doesn’t matter how many times you tell him. He keeps on ‘bringing it up’.

      And he must have liked my “äll that white” description about the snow and ice cover viewed on Modis – Aqua and Terra satellites, he keeps repeating it.
      John still thinks the Arctic is no more than 50 years old, no such thing as history for our warmista friend, because if he did realise it, it may contradict his warmista obscurantic rhetoric.

      Dictionary – obscurantic :- a person or thing that obscures, esp. one that opposes or tends to prevent human progress and enlightenment.

      Must be how he responds because of that terribly high CO2 level he is breathing in. ( It’s a joke Joyce ).

      John also side stepped the Solar flare and GCR comment. Too hard ? And it might go against his obscurantism with carbon dioxide. Maybe he can’t find enough to cut and paste from Really Scary Climax.
      JT

  97. JeffT says:

    Oh John Byatt,
    You like to twist meanings, – interesting !
    I do not accept your version of greenhouse theory, but I notice that you use the word “theory” in your statement. ( theory – a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena )

    Your right, – general propositions, principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. – Well done.

    I do accept that there is a greenhouse effect. ie greenhouse gases, including water vapour, CO2, NO2 etc. pass solar energy and retain this heat energy partially as air surface temperature and mostly as heat stored in the oceans.
    Now do I have to rerun this past you every post, or is it in your head now ?

    And I do like my new word for the day – Obscurantism.
    It does describe what you do with CO2 theories so well.
    Pity it doesn’t rhyme with rhetoric or even parroting.
    See dictionary explanation of the word “theory” above.

    It must be just about time to start talking about the Sun, GCR’s, clouds.
    I’m not denying that bit of science theory and observational data ie empirical data.
    Now tell me really, did you enjoy the Forbush Decrease, Feb 18-22 ?
    I found it elegantly beautiful, to watch the effect on the neutron counters around the world.
    The recent ‘M’ class solar flares are a bit daunting though. So is the increase in EM activity on the sun.
    But getting back to John Byatt, who’s still worrying about CO2 increase from 270ppm to 391ppm in 160 years, of which Australia is responsible for 1.4% of 121ppm. I suppose you’ll “amplify” that. Comes out at 1.69ppm. WOW.

    Now if we could only get all the warmers to do the right thing and not breath out, saving up to 4000ppm per person, or up to 8000ppm per person if they are doing naughty things. LOL (like heavy exercise)
    Then I might give some credence to CO2.

    Here’s some information on CO2 and human physiology.
    http://breathing.com/articles/carbon-dioxide.htm
    Might even save your heart and reduce hypertension.
    J.
    Too many subjects ? Sorry about that.

  98. john byatt says:

    Now jefft is saying that he accepts greenhouse theory ?

    He has been posting claims that the warming has been due to everything but that since he has been on the forums

  99. john byatt says:

    JEFF “Your line in the previous post:
    “you have to deny that the ocean is warming or rising, deny that the Arctic is in summer free fall, deny that the glaciers are in rapid retreat,deny that the ocean ph is dropping deny that the warming trend has accelerated over the last forty years, you just about have to deny every single bit of science theory and observational data and cling to maybe its this or that or whatever the theory of the week is –”
    Is right out of the ‘Warmist’s Handbook”.

    Jeff ,” what john has said is true but i will just make a stupid reply because i cannot deny it ”

    and that is probably denial of denial

  100. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    You just don;t get it do you !
    I posted Schreuder’s submission to the US EPA. and that’s all.
    Now your really stuck in the groove of hate Hans Schreuder. Get over it.
    Yes J.B., if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s probably an alarmist making a lot of noise, thinking he’s a duck.
    J

    • john byatt says:

      I presume that you are responding to this

      Jefft your reply is spot on as the usual denier declaration of ‘no i only posted the crap that does not mean i believe it’, heard it over and over jeff

  101. john byatt says:

    JeffT i accept greenhouse gas theory,

    again on Hans’s blog

    FINALLY – TOTAL DEMOLITION OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY:

    jefft you are a fraud that simply have not got the fortitude to stand up and say that you do not accept greenhouse and that is why you claim that is not necessarily your argument ,

    duck and weave , if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck

  102. john byatt says:

    190000GTs nuclear power stn output p/a

  103. john byatt says:

    again you claim that you accept greenhouse and then tell us about your hero Hans the DENSA Schreuder

    At his blog this is posted
    NEW PAPER EXPOSES GREENHOUSE GAS FUNCTIONING: . . . they COOL the atmosphere!

    Cognitive dissonance JeffT unresolved

  104. john byatt says:

    Jeff you accept Miskolczi’s theory,

    Roy Spencer and everyone else,

    “On the theory side, much of what he claims depends upon the validity of his statement,

    “for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.”

    If this statement was true, then IR radiative transfers cannot change the temperature of anything, and Earth’s natural greenhouse effect cannot exist.

    so you have to choose between Miskolczi and GHT

    so you claim that those empirical observations are not linked to enhanced Green House, that makes you a denialist not a sceptic

    “With reports of the lowest temperatures in 60 – 100+years reported across the NH.”

    so you are referring to uk and parts of europe for a a short period meanwhile parts of canada and alaska were 15C above normal ,

    You do not even understand the reason for the cold snap across those areas and the relationship to the arctic warming, you have spent so much time on garbage sites like i love CO2 that the science has past you by.

    you have no knowledge that the earth is gaining energy equiv of 190,000 Gts per year also by observation and has been doing so for at least the past decade , imbalance Jeff ,

    you have to deny that the ocean is warming or rising, deny that the Arctic is in summer free fall, deny that the glaciers are in rapid retreat,deny that the ocean ph is dropping deny that the warming trend has accelerated over the last forty years, you just about have to deny every single bit of science theory and observational data and cling to maybe its this or that or whatever the theory of the week is, then you all throw a hissy fit if called deniers,

    • JeffT says:

      John Byatt,
      Either you assume (making an ass out of you and me). Or you like to put words into my mouth (post).

      “Jeff you accept Miskolczi’s theory,
      Roy Spencer and everyone else,
      “On the theory side, much of what he claims depends upon the validity of his statement,”

      Then you bring in Hans Schreuter. – Hmmm.
      I posted the link to his submission, J.B. and added his qualifications.

      Hans might be right after all, the warmer camp is now telling us the cooling is caused by the warming, which is caused by the CO2 “blanket”.
      I had better qualify that by putting a LOL after it.
      Cognitive dissonance ?
      I’ll put another LOL after that as well.
      How about the freeze across the north of Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway and the freezing of the Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Finland and most of the Baltic. (looked good on webcam), earlier looked good on the UK as well. The Arctic summer is in free fall – not at the moment J.B. –
      It is only now starting to recede (Mar 11 ), about right on schedule, so most of your 190,000 Gts of energy equiv. must be going up the proverbial spout – maybe it’s being dissipated via convection.
      This lattitude also looked nice and white on Modis, must be those manipulated images ? No ? They’re about 4 hrs old. (near real time).

      Your line in the previous post:
      “you have to deny that the ocean is warming or rising, deny that the Arctic is in summer free fall, deny that the glaciers are in rapid retreat,deny that the ocean ph is dropping deny that the warming trend has accelerated over the last forty years, you just about have to deny every single bit of science theory and observational data and cling to maybe its this or that or whatever the theory of the week is –”
      Is right out of the ‘Warmist’s Handbook”.
      J

      • john byatt says:

        January 5, 2011 at 3:33 pm
        Record low ice extent at the same time as we see strange outbursts of Arctic Air into Europe and eastern US. Weird coincidence indeed.

        I predicted a while back (based on statistics from 1988) that Northern European temperatures would become much warmer right after New Years. This is exactly what happened. Interesting to see that temperatures in denier central England is now way above normal. 8 day forecast for London is up to 10C, that is well above the normal of 6C.
        Deniers like sunspot guru Piers Corbyn predicted the entire English winter to be extremely cold, without any periods of mild weather, due to th elow solar activity. The British MSM and even the mayor of London lapped up every word and publicly disrespected the MET office. I wonder if they are going to start quizzing Corbyn and the rest of the Imminent Ice Age gang about the failure of their January forecast, just like they pestered the MET office about the failure of their December forecast. Moral of the story is that long term forecasting in the winter has become extremely tricky, due to the messed up Arctic circulation patterns.

      • john byatt says:

        Jefft your reply is spot on as the usual denier declaration of ‘no i only posted the crap that does not mean i believe it’, heard it over and over jeff

  105. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    Keeping it simple, one subject, and repeating from previous. JeffT (11:37:00)

    I watch sea ice thickness, sea ice distribution and sea ice flow. PIPS 2.0 because of the ability to check against archival and the data integrity is from US Navy sources. Bremen for sea ice cover at both Arctic and Antarctic, as it is more independent than NSIDC, and Arctic sea ice cover from the Danish Met. Later addition is Canada’s Met sea ice and lake ice cover service, and the Russian floating ice stations NP-37 & NP-38.
    ===============================================
    And you “assume” that I do not acknowledge green house effect exists.
    Wrong !
    It’s just that I do not believe the alarmist’s version of the green house effect.
    No I don’t need a lecture on the latest machinations of AGW or GHG. – with beauties like –
    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward poles) – That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    Is that from modeling ?
    With reports of the lowest temperatures in 60 – 100+years reported across the NH. and have decreased for the last three years. Mmmm.
    Snow and ice cover breaking records.

    Another source of picture data (a picture is worth —), is Modis with near real time data from Aqua and Terra satellites. All that lovely white stuff.
    I also use this source when I have enough time to browse.
    J.

  106. john byatt says:

    Jeff As I have also told you before, I watch sea ice thickness, sea ice distribution and sea ice flow. PIPS 2.0 because of the ability to check against archival and the data integrity is from US Navy sources. , and Arctic sea ice cover from the Danish Met. Later addition is Canada’s Met sea ice and lake ice cover service, and the Russian floating ice stations NP-37 & NP-38.
    Bremen for sea ice cover at both Arctic and Antarctic,

    at Bremen
    All level 1A data are received from the National Space Development Agency of Japan.
    Distributed by: Boulder, CO, USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. FTP download.

    jeff does not trust NSIDC, what a goose

    • JeffT says:

      John Byatt,
      Ah, but I do not rely on one source John B.

      http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-%E2%80%9Ccatastrophic-failure%E2%80%9D-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-or-more-days/

      Took 45 days to admit faulty sensor after Watts reported it. Yes it was Feb 2009.

      That’s why I use other sources DMI, PIPS 2.0, Canada Met., NP-37 then NP-38.
      ( NP-38 @ 79.4deg N, SST -32.4deg C. at present 21:38 E.A.S.T. )
      Bremen is easier to read, better graphics, different data processing.
      Yes J.B. even I can read the bottom of the page.
      Goosey goose.

      • john byatt says:

        you are a goose jefft because you accept whatever you read on a bog blog, always go to the source as i have told you repeatedly

        http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html

        It did not take 45 days at all, the graph showed a sudden drop on about the 16th reported by numerous people it was only after checking that the data was found to be drifting and had been for 45 days
        it was not reported 45 days previously to that, it is only a daily service provided for those interested and the data is archived and presented after the end of the month about seven days to two weeks later, that has always been the case, read the information regarding that , i knew that when the minimum level was shown at the end of the melt every year , data to be confirmed ,

        Bremen get data from NSIDC good enough for them not good enough for you .

  107. john byatt says:

    Given that Jefft, elsa, woger and klem do not even acknowledge that green house effect exists how then do they resolve the following model predictions specific to greenhouse and confirmed by observation ie empirical evidence to have occurred?

    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

    it seems that these are the things that they need to address even before going on to claim other causes for the warming

  108. john byatt says:

    Jeff T your reference to Hans once again confirms that you do not even accept the greenhouse effect

    “Miskolczi and his theories I acknowledge, but it is not necessarily my argument.”

    go to Realclimate click start here,

  109. john byatt says:

    Does the term “industrial revolution” ring any bells ?

    you sure this guy is in MENSA and not DENSA

    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/index.html

    ‘XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    Internal variability, does that allow variable results ?
    One of those is called ENSO which carter found that if you remove the warming trend then the warming was due to ENSO , thick

    looks like your arctic sites are a secret then, ?

    are you here to actually make a point at all , nothing so far that could even be considered a debate , general self praise and little else

  110. JeffT says:

    John Byatt
    I’ll leave the ‘without actually understanding’ subject – one less subject for you.

    Exact temperature rise since 1880. — Point being made is why the cutoff date ?
    Why not 900 AD, or eg. 50 BC ?
    No it’s because of the convenient warming from a recorded colder period with convenient disregard And that brings us back to the “Hockeyschtick” paradigm.
    There has been mercury thermometers used to measure air temperature since at least 1740 – Gabriel Fahrenheit invented this form of thermometer in 1714

    Internal variability, does that allow variable results ?

    Uncertainty of 10% could result in complete invalidation of modeling. But that has been “adjusted” hasn’t it ?

    You do know there has been sensor problems with NSIDC ? There has also been inaccuracies with the Grace satellites, and there has been reluctance to admit these problems. This is why I use as many ice data monitor sites as I can to watch ice cover.
    Global Conspiracy – you wrote that.
    I would more suspect keeping derriere’s on seats as the reason(s). Funding cuts are funding cuts, a possible (unemployment) scenario.

    If as you put it that “I understand more than 99% of the world’s scientists”, I wouldn’t be here and elsewhere questioning. I started out as a believer of AGW. Looking into the political and “economist’s” angles soon makes one look deeper.
    How many subjects there John ?

  111. john byatt says:

    If you look at it as a funnel without actually understanding what you are pouring in probably explains a lot, so where is the uncertainty?

    Exact temperature rise since1880,

    Internal variability

    sensitivity due feedbacks etc,,

    of these about the only one with any level of uncertainty 10% relates to the feedbacks,

    you do tender to wander of track Jeff and now include six subject in one post

    what blogs do you follow regarding Arctic ice if you believe that govt sites such as JAXA NSIDC etc are in on the global conspiracy,

    when did you first realise that you understood more about global warming than 99% of the worlds scientists ?

  112. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    Can I say I’m not surprised by your response(s)- at least I got some response.
    (Klem (14:27:26) – sorry I haven’t read this poster’s input yet, BUT, is it not a fact that the ACC alarmists have hung their shingles on Haiti, Indonesia, Yatsi/Queensland and previously Chilean natural disasters, Russian heatwave and Pakistan’s flood ?
    I hopefully do not include John Byatt in this lot, hopefully.

    Ice core, leaf stomata and even bristlecone pines are just tools to investigate climate history. And history of the planet and external influences are all that we have to go on, multi-million dollar chickens entrails machines (computer modeling) still requires historic and current empirical data as inputs, which has left us with conclusions such as :-
    The planet has warmed since 1880 by about 0.8degC
    The warming is caused by increased CO2
    The CO2 is due to human fossil fuel use.
    Even the font of all climatic data – the IPCC, state that there are areas of lesser understanding, – clouds, GCR’s, solar characteristics, planetary magnetic/gravity influences, deep ocean characteristics.

    What is missing in that paradigm is the time period. Yes it states ‘since 1880′, but does it include – say, since 50 BC (example only) ? No, it leaves the reader with the concept of flat line (dare I say Hockeyschtick ?) pre 1880.

    I do not understand the implications? Does that mean I haven’t drunk the Green Koolade ? Of course I understand the implications, and that includes the alternate implications. (Let’s not get political)

    You complain about what appears to be multiple subject in my posts – Sorry about that ! , just look upon it as a funnel – pour the subjects in the top, and it comes out the bottom as non-acceptance of the above paradigm that are outputs from the “funnel of chicken’s entrails” (computer modeling output).

    Would your sea ice data include the provable Arctic melts in 1959, 1956, 1922 ? Other historic Arctic melts from journals such as James Cooks journals. And there is Chinese texts from earlier eras. These leave 2006-7 which was low but not spectacular (AMRS-E)
    You have seen the US Navy and British Navy subs at the geographic North Pole in open sea with broken ice surround photos, circa 1959 ?

    Duped by Cox ? (Who ?), I had to find a reference to John Cox, which was a review of his book on Roger Pielke Snr’s site.
    (was Cox supposed to be a subtle put down ? )
    Oh sorry about that one as well, Roger Pielke Snr doesn’t count does he ?

    I have just learnt a new word from reading Dr Hans Schreuder’s submission to the the US EPA, as applied to the current climate of Climate Science.
    “Obscurantism” a good word to look up in your dictionary.

    I suppose Dr Hans Schreuder, a retired analytical chemist and member of Mensa doesn’t count either? He is after all a “sceptic” or what ever ‘ianash’ would like to tag him with.

  113. john byatt says:

    Jefft, what may seem like offhanded is a result of being over and over with this stuff elsewhere,

    now look at this goon that is one of your compatriots
    Klem (14:27:26) :
    I can’t wait for the hysterical ACC alarmist community to claim that Japan’s earthquake was caused by ACC. It’s coming, you know its coming. It will represent the final desperate scream as the green movement implodes, ending once and for all one of the most bizaar periods in human history. I can’t wait. I just can’t wait!!!

    nothing from ice core nor stomata are going to change the following

    The planet has warmed since 1880 by about .8DegC
    the warming is caused by increased CO2
    the co2 is due to human fossil fuel use,

    You do not understand the implications

    now how could anyone answer any questions from you when you are onto about five different subjects per post.

    try to stick with one and follow it through

    Arctic sea ice , shows us yours then we will show you ours,

    I am surprised that someone like yourself has been duped by Cox who continually reveals that he does not have a clue about anything .

  114. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    You know my stance on this as it has been debated (?) before elsewhere.
    So your statement about ‘flaming weird position to take’, and ‘ýour lot’ etc doesn’t gel.
    Miskolczi and his theories I acknowledge, but it is not necessarily my argument.
    So ‘now I put up stuff contradicting all that.’ Nyet to that as well John B.

    The van Hoof et al document has been in my library for close to 2 years, and it shows higher resolution frequency variations of CO2 than tree rings and ice cores. Disadvantage being that the record is not continuous, so is an adjunct to the other methods.
    Importantly, it does show that CO2 has been higher at various times, and that contradicts the data being presented currently. (Mann, Briffa & IPCC )
    As I have also told you before, I watch sea ice thickness, sea ice distribution and sea ice flow. PIPS 2.0 because of the ability to check against archival and the data integrity is from US Navy sources. Bremen for sea ice cover at both Arctic and Antarctic, as it is more independent than NSIDC, and Arctic sea ice cover from the Danish Met. Later addition is Canada’s Met sea ice and lake ice cover service, and the Russian floating ice stations NP-37 & NP-38.
    Why ? because it also contradicts the mainstream information being presented. After 1997/98 the sea ice cover is not going to disappear any time soon etc, etc. After you see the Great lakes partially freeze up and the St Lawrence Seaway get blocked with ice, viewed on web cams, you might understand.

    And as you either don’t read my posts, or treat them offhanded, you would have missed my solar related quip recently. ‘Did you enjoy the Forbush Event Feb 18-22 ? ‘ – You can add to that another CME that has glanced Earth, March 10. and it also has changed the present GCR’s.
    Yes I also watch the Neutron monitors. How’s your sensitivities ? How much ‘forcing ‘ of muons passing through your skull can you take ?
    I didn’t mention clouds did I ?
    Good Grief

  115. john byatt says:

    all that is being stated is that plant stomata may provide a CO2 record of observational constraint on sensitivity

    currently doubling CO2 3DegC +- 1.5

    they are not denying that they believe that stomata may provide more information to that,

    flaming weird position to take Jeff when yesterday your lot were claiming its cooling heading into an ice age, also
    that sensitivity is neutral
    that miskolczi has in effect ruled out and Green house effect,

    now you put up stuff contradicting all that ,

    • john byatt says:

      The climate is always changing

      The climate cannot change because sensitivity is low

      good grief

  116. john byatt says:

    Concluding Remarks

    A coherent scenario explaining preindustrial atmospheric CO2 changes of the last millennium and their possible temporal link with changes in terrestrial and marine carbon uptake or release still needs to be established. Reconstructed multidecadal changes are not as prominent as man-made CO2 increases since the onset of industrialization. Yet it seems obvious that a dynamic CO2 regime with fluctuations of up to 34 ppmv implies that CO2 can no longer be discarded as a forcing factor of preindustrial air-temperature changes. The results of our study therefore underscore the need to understand anthropogenic global warming within the context of rates and amplitudes of natural CO2 variability of the last millennium. A stomata-based CO2 record may provide an important observational constraint on the sensitivity of climate models.

  117. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    Where your responses fall down is that you look at the header (Debunk House), make up your mind, but don’t look further into the bibliography.
    Same applies linking to WUWT or many other so-called sceptic sites.
    I will chase up the original articles and check their bibliography or acknowledgements. Quite often I get blocked by pay walls like Elsevier or Scribd.

    From that link (Debunk House) there is considerable text and graphing from the Thomas B. van Hoof, Friederike Wagner-Cremer, Wolfram M. Kurschner and Henk Visscher paper titled –
    Ä role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing.
    Proceedings of the N.A.S. of the United States.
    It is only noted in the D.H article as Van Hoof et al.

    I did explain Corbyn is not a charity, or funded publically. What do you want his organisation to be ?

  118. john byatt says:

    I have not read any of SS posts re leaf stomata as i have said i have had an interest in it from the start

    debunk house , what a great scientific site , always link to actual paper, not some blog bog interpretation as Cox has obviuously read regarding the Knox and the knorr papers ,

    search out the papers and read them for yourself , even if behind paywalls most can be found elsewhere ,

    now where was piers warning to russia about an impending super heatwave so that they could prepare, you accuse people of not answering your questions while you drop one thing that is not looking to good for you and then move to some other absolute crap

  119. JeffT says:

    John Byatt,
    Further on leaf stomata as previous.
    http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
    This is not the PNAS paper I mentioned , but does reference that work.
    Of course, John Cook/Skeptical Science doesn’t agree.

  120. john byatt says:

    jefft i read the leaf stomata stuff a long time ago from my interest in horticulture,
    it is not as clear cut as you would wish, the new papers are showing that some plants are adapting by a reduction in size of stomata thus reducing amount of co2 to their maximum reuirements, thus arguements that plants will continue to take up more CO2 is ill-founded for some plants,

    no jeff i do not wish you to link to a met office paper for piers, surely as something as devastating as a coming super heat wave would have been posted somewhere months before it happened , does not piers like advertising,

    you have been had fella and you have misunderstood info re nasa and tsi,

    post the nasa link rather than some dodgy site,
    if what the paper has found to be true then over the last 120 years the solar influence would have been an even more cooling contribution than [previously thought, it does not work both ways

    current anomaly GISS .82DegC above 1880.

    do you want more info on the NASA findings ?

  121. JeffT says:

    Ah John Byatt,
    You must of skipped the NASA document on solar variability, I posted a link to above.
    Pity, as it shows new findings on TSI, you know, the facts on TSI the IPCC virtually dismisses as having hardly any effect.

    • ianash says:

      JeffT

      Let’s recap:
      – Geoff is incapable of answering even basic questions on the papers he cites
      – Corbyn is shonky and incapable of presenting independent evidence that he is better than chance at predicting the weather
      – You dont seem to understand the effect of TSI on the climate. The NASA paper doesn’t help your case against AGW and CO2.

      But keep the disinformation flying. You new party leader, Herr Minchin will be pleased!

  122. JeffT says:

    As you did not read the original posting re pre industrial CO2 by studies of leaf stomata, I will just disregard your “adapting to higher levels of CO2″ statement.
    It was using fossil leaf stomata to determine pre industrial CO2 levels and frequency of changes.
    New papers on adapting to higher levels is irrelevant, except that it shows that stomata do adapt to the CO2 levels by size and number. Adaption by size and number of stomata is the basis of the study (and the paper). But you and I knew that.

    Corbyn’s submission to the UK parliament was touting for business.

    The link to Weather Action’s website was to show the documentation, which apparently you missed.
    What do you expect, a reference for Weather Action from the UK Met?
    Moved away from that ? Huh ?

  123. john byatt says:

    JeffT proves piers claimit by linking to piers site,

    piers would not as stupid……..

    Monckton would not be so stupid as to present false evidence before congress. yer pull the other one

    you will have to do better than that , i thought you were claiming heat waves and floods , moved away from that ?

    there are new papers out re leaf stomata, read them, plants may be adapting to higher levels of CO2

  124. JeffT says:

    ianash,
    So you don’t think I will hit and run, check this pdf 17pages on Solar radiation variation.
    Ummm, it’s from NASA and it has graphs, and golly it isn’t peer reviewed.

    http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sspvse/Group_D/Variations_of_the_Solar_Irradiance.pdf

    JT

    • john byatt says:

      Jefft I challenge you to prove what you claim about piers with facts not with fantasy , link to his actual predictions months prior to events, you have never once heard of a piers prediction coming true till after the event ,

      “Actually I don’t give a fig about looking good, I want answers.”

      “John Byatt remained strangely silent. And then he exited stage left.”

      hutcho you are a bit like elsa and roger, you all want answers to stuff that you could find out for yourself ,

      not my job to give you answers just debate you,

      what stupid claim do you wish to make that could be debated?

      • JeffT says:

        John Byatt,
        Re Piers Corbyn, a page of links from his blog , which includes his submissions to the UK Parliament’s investigations into weather forecasting.
        http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=315&c=5
        Corbyn would not as stupid as to place documentary evidence before the UK parliament that was false or misleading.
        Included in that posting is the reference to the Met Office’s about “We’re learning”, “all it requires is another supercomputer.”
        I doubt you will lower yourself to reading them of course.

        Then there is the 17 page pdf I linked to at JeffT (14:50:22), a NASA document on Solar variability.
        I put that up for debate. But as it doesn’t involve CO2, I doubt any action on this item will occur.

        I quoted a peer reviewed by the PNAS paper, about leaf stomata, that gives better frequency data on CO2 variations than ice core data (due to gas bleed) and tree ring data (due to other factors that vary tree ring growth data ). That also was put up for debate – result – nyet, nada, nothing.

        “not my job to give you answers just debate you,

        what stupid claim do you wish to make that could be debated?”

        Ummm, I just listed two, and provided the link to your question re-Corbyn.
        Maybe you will be able to find them under this blanket of CO2

  125. Geoff Brown says:

    Ianass: “Piers Corbyn…hahahaha! This guy is a jumped up water diviner!'”

    So would you like to com[arte Piers predictions with the GCMs?

    No, perhaps not. The GCMs fail. Piers Passes.

    • ianash says:

      Hahaha

      One is science, one is water divining.

      Corbyn is a flim flam man. He’s afraid to undertake a double blind scientific evaluation of his predictions. He’ll keep conning the rubes with his ‘secret formula’.

      A different form of denier, but a denier nonetheless!

      And still Geoff no science from you. Miskolczi’s theory – you remember? At least give it a try.

      • JeffT says:

        ianash, Hahaha ?
        Corbyn’s evaluation is his business success. If you think he is “conning the rubes”, think again. He is now consulting – for a fee, to business, who have had the inconsistent, unreliable long term weather predictions from the Met and Hadley.
        This puts Weather Action into the realm of litigation if wrong.
        Water divining may be better than chickens entrails that are apparently used by others.
        While you gentlemen chew the fat over CO2, and all its machinations, that medium sized yellow star keeps coming up over the eastern horizon, radiating the planet with a wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum.
        Where that doyen of scientific information, the IPCC states that TSI does not vary by much, NASA is now acknowledging that it does vary by more than first expected.
        JT

  126. john byatt says:

    Jefft “I realise John Byatt is ignoring my entry, as is his usual method.”

    jeff is referring to JG, so jeff posts and i copy and wait sooner or later jeff will contradict himself but guess what you find yourself banned with no reason given , then jeff proclaims to all that you have run away, they do this often , just check a few, “NO LONGER MEMBER OF JUST GROUNDS”,
    jEFF AND HIS MATES THEN GO ON FOR WEEKS ABOUT EVERYONE RUNNING AWAY FROM THEM,

    GEOFF SAID THAT THE MODS STATED THAT I WAS THE CAUSE OF THE BANNING BUT HE STILL DOES NOT KNOW WHY,

    VERY CUNNING TRICKS JEFFT TO TRY TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK GOOD, GUESS WHAT, I DONT CARE BECAUSE IT JUST CONFIRMS what i have believed about you from the star,

    sorry for the caps , could not be bothered going back and fixing

    • JeffT says:

      John Byatt,
      I identify as JeffT , be it here or Just Grounds, Jo Nova, WUWT or Brave New Climate or any other site I comment on.
      As far as your position on Just Grounds, I assumed that you picked up your bat and ball and moved on. You quite often ignored my posts, probably because you did not think I was worthy of your lofty reply, or maybe because I don’t share you extended treatises on carbon dioxide.
      Yes I did ask, queried or commented on about your absence. Gets a bit frustrating trying to get a response with an “on again – off again” type of participant.
      You wrote above:
      “Very cunning tricks JeffT to try and make yourself look good, guess what, I don’t care because it just confirms what I have believed about you from the start”.
      Please explain the above, as it has me curious.
      Actually I don’t give a fig about looking good, I want answers.

      My concept was to get some balance into the CO2 argument v/s Climate Change, something that is missing in your carbon rich atmosphere.

      Just an instance – I quoted a peer reviewed by the PNAS paper, about leaf stomata, that gives better frequency data on CO2 variations than ice core data (due to gas bleed) and tree ring data (due to other factors that vary tree ring growth data ).
      John Byatt remained strangely silent. And then he exited stage left.
      JT

  127. john byatt says:

    Now if Piers was predicting a massive russian heat wave then you would think that it would have been shouted from the rooftops by the sceptics well before it happened,

  128. john byatt says:

    Nostradamus was a hobby project of mine years ago, most still do not know what it was all about,

    bit like salman rushdie books

  129. JeffT says:

    I realise John Byatt is ignoring my entry, as is his usual method.
    But my query on his reaction to Piers Corbyn and his proven methods of medium term weather prediction, while disregarding ANY inclusion of CO2. Now becomes a statement.
    Corbyn predicted the Russian heatwave and the Pakistani Floods that occurred Aug 2010 as a stalling of the jetstream over the western Russia and Pakistan.
    All the CO2 warmist pushers said it was Climate Change due to raised CO2 levels – Grist, Real Climate, DeSmog, Joe Romm – Climate Progress, James Hansen – South China Morning Press, BBC – Climate Change partially to blame, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Andrew Rivkin reports Climate scientists – Peter Stott British Met Office and Kevin Trenberth NCAR.
    But they were wrong.
    NOAA: Natural variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave that killed thousands.
    As Piers Corbyn predicted months before, without any CO2 in the equation.
    Corbyn also predicted the Queensland floods with the present heavy rains.
    Without any CO2 in the equation.
    Still breathing out 4000ppm CO2 John B. ?

    • john byatt says:

      Sorry jeff T, Hutcho ?

      did not see any past post from you probably due to only about 5 on the comments list

      i have followed Piers for quite a long time
      his predictions are a bit like Nostradamus, after the event
      he generally counts any correct event occurring within 200km or a week from an actual event as being accurate,
      his predictions that are correct are no better than tossing a coin, now point me to his prediction of the Russian heat wave and drought and lets examine them , cause he does go back and adjust his posts in my experience, and much of his stuff is for purchase so you don[‘t really get to see any beforehand prediction

      If however you are convinced that piers is brilliant then i do not wish to rain on your parade
      a brother in law lives at PM old buggar and sceptic of course

      actually jeff point to the evidence of all the piers predictions because BOM was predicting heavy rainfall events for the SEQ months before end of 2010 , he was probably just echoing them

      you do realise that the increased rain in the NH has been by peer reviewed literature been linked to CO2 where is Piers paper ?

    • ianash says:

      Piers Corbyn…hahahaha!
      This guy is a jumped up water diviner!

      From 2005.
      “Trying to bet on climate with Piers Corbyn
      Piers Corbyn runs Weatheraction, an independent and rather controversial weather forecasting operation which claims to be able to make useful long-term predictions. It’s controversial because most weather forecasters do not believe there is any merit in his principles (he claims that the forecasts are based on solar output) or his forecasts. Moreover, he refuses to detail his techniques or even test his skill in any objective manner. This article puts his case, and that of his critics, in a reasonably fair way. It seems likely that much of his “success”, such as it is, is based on issuing forecasts that read like horoscopes, where an optimistic assessor would find merit, but a critical assessor would find fault. Anyway, I’m not really writing about his weather predictions, but his climate forecast.

      On the 2nd February 2005, he gave this presentation to the Institute of Physics Energy Management Group. It contains the following:
      In the next 5 or 10 years warming is likely to be maintained as a transpolar shift occurs. This will be followed by the magnetic pole moving away from the geographic pole, a decrease in solar activity, a southward shift in the Gulf stream and considerable world cooling by 2040 AD.
      Of course this forecast strongly contradicts all the projections of the IPCC. If correct, it would have almost unlimited commercial value, as it implies (among other things) that all concern over anthropogenic global warming is misplaced. I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of scientists with any knowledge of climate science would say that the forecast is nonsense. However, what matters to me is what Corbyn himself thinks.

      So, I emailed him to ask him if he could quantify his “considerable world cooling”, and whether he would consider a bet with me on the subject. Note that unlike the other people I have previously tried to arrange bets with (here and here), he actually makes his living out of selling forecasts, and is proud to boast of taking on the bookies and winning. So he won’t have the “I don’t take risks” excuse of Myron Ebell.

      I’ve not managed to get any reply out of him at all, still less a bet. For someone who claims a success rate of 80% or more with his forecasts, he seems remarkably reluctant to make any money out of this one. Could it be … that he knows it is wrong?

      So I’m still looking for that elusive consensus-busting sceptic who is prepared to make a forecast, and stand behind it. If anyone hears of a sceptical prediction, please let me know.”

      • JeffT says:

        More to the point ianash, find us a climate change believer that is prepared to make a long range or even a medium range forecast and stick by it.
        The UK Met with the big black super computer, chewing up over a megawatt, running models and simulations at incredible speed has failed for anything over about 5 days.
        “The advantage of a super computer is you can arrive at an incorrect output sooner”
        Corbyn, his laptop, use of solar data, lunar cycle data and some proprietary charts has continually “licked” the Met office results, to the point business that relies on correct weather forecasts are now listening to the “water diviner”. Corbyn’s problem is that he doesn’t present well, besides his hair style.
        You do know about the UK roads authority that believed the Met office and their warmer winter predictions -and they ran out of grit to put on the road surfaces,resulting in ice caused road accidents.
        ianash apparently challenged Piers Corbyn and didn’t get an answer. Did you not even contemplate that you gave Corbyn a WTF moment ?

        You also seem to mock his information about polar shift. Haven’t you looked into magnetic anomolies around the planet ?
        NASA has, and there is data and charts around.
        And why do you think that users of magnetic compasses require to correct their instruments on a regular basis. Look at the correction factor on maps of different ages. I look at gravity anomolies, neutron count and GCR’s on a regular basis. Not a CO2 molecule in sight.

        John Byatt asks were is his peer reviewed papers. The papers are in the bank as banknotes, his data and charts are proprietary, Corbyn is there to sell a service, not to proclaim his information to the public, the press or to scientists. He is not a funded by an institution scientist, but a business.
        Unlike the scientist Dr James Hansen, who even with his props and political connections, keeps putting his predictions into the future, as they keep running out of time.
        JT

  130. john byatt says:

    well roy cannot understand it geoff , he regards it as the silliest load of codwallop that he has come across in 40 years,
    I have read and do understand what FM is claiming, all of it

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
    August 6, 2010 at 2:52 AM
    Christopher, I think you did not read my entire article before objecting.

    Miskolczi did NOT find Aa= Ed from radiosonde data, any more than Kiehl and Trenberth did. Look at the numbers in the diagram!

    And, I showed why they APPEAR to be equal when he computes fluxes for thin layers…its because the fluxes are extremely small.

    If, at the Earth’s surface, Aa=Ed *observationally* (as you insist Miskolczi is asserting), then there is NO net IR flow between the surface and atmosphere,and the greenhouse effect does not exist!

    so despite what i think you must be a lot smarter and know a hell of a lot more than old Roy,

  131. ianash says:

    Still avoiding the science Geoff.

    (And denial of denial is a disease…)

    • Geoff Brown says:

      Mate, if you deniers think that when you ask what is 2+2 and then say my answer 4 is wrong. How the hell would you even start to understand the first line of Ferenc’ law?

      • ianash says:

        Ok, I get it now…

        Your just playing dumb and soon you will dazzle me with your understanding of radiative flux profiles and transfer models.

        Still three questions unanswered Geoff. You are letting down the Obersturmmann at TCS!

        One more question:

        When Miskolczi looks at radiative forcing in the context of climate change, is he using the concept of forcing to determine the changes in the radiation balance of the surface/troposphere system imposed by external factors – with no changes in stratospheric dynamics – or is he including surface and tropospheric feedbacks that may be in operation?

  132. Geoff Brown says:

    Deniers: just to test that is the real geoff and not some counterfeit geoff

    2 + 2 =

    GB: Four what result?

    Deniers: Geoff if 2+2 is too hard to answer

    Derrr…

    • john byatt says:

      I was going to ask a question about percentages, then if you got it right i would know that it wasn’t you geoff ,

      good fun at that unleashed but hard to get up as you realise ,

      try a different answer if rejected the first time .

      • Geoff Brown says:

        If you can’t see that I said FOUR in my answer, can’t understand any as palin as that…
        GB: Four ……..what result?

        Deniers: Geoff if 2+2 is too hard to answer

        How the heck do you think that you could understand Ferenc Miskolczi?

    • ianash says:

      Geoff,

      I see you have again avoided answering the questions on Miskolczi’s theory.

      Can you answer any questions on the science?

      (I’m guessing you may very well be a 9/11 truther as well. Your denial is so strong it probably spills over into other areas…)

  133. john byatt says:

    good fun at unleashed, cox is now claiming that climate sensitivity can be assessed from BOM temperature data, love the man

  134. john byatt says:

    I was looking at the Questionnaire on different kleptics websites, about five different versions now, add a new one from geoff

  135. john byatt says:

    Poor old geoff had to change question 6 due evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect

    Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
    Cancelled, new question 6

    Q6″As carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last 10 years, have there been any observations providing evidence that that has caused the temperature of the planet increase?”

    apparently the answer is that temperatures have been falling so no evidence

    with experts like geoff and Cox no wonder they are making complete fools of themselves

  136. john byatt says:

    Boo Hoo i just failed geoffs CO2 test,
    i am sure that woger will not be wong

    Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
    Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

  137. john byatt says:

    Geoff, the models are learning tools but they must have predictive capabilities to be useful, this year we have learnt that the doubling of co2 with short term feedbacks is showing 3.3Degc that is useful to know is it not?

    if you wish to see just where the predictions of sensitivity come from, well they go back a long way, well before computers

    http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html

  138. ianash says:

    Geoff

    Have a look at the demolition job at skeptical science of the distorted, untruthful and misleading presentation of your mate “Professor” Bob Carter .

    Science tops another denier…

  139. john byatt says:

    just to test that is the real geoff and not some counterfeit geoff

    2 + 2 =

    please supply answer

    • Geoff Brown says:

      Four what result? It will not prove that the GCMs have any accuracy. will it?

      • ianash says:

        Geoff, you need to keep up with the science.

        The applicability of Miskolczi’s theory to AGW was disproved several times over. Actually it’s applicability to anything approaching a climate has been disproved. The main thing that blows him away is that direct observations show no compensation between the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide and water vapour. What they show is that water vapour changes have amplified the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

        Geoff if 2+2 is too hard to answer, how about these points relating to Miskolczi’s theory:

        – do you truly believe that grey body theory represents a comprehensive (or even realistic) approach to GCM? If so, why?

        – How do you explain the errors in his paper relating to Kirchhoff’s Law?

        – Can you explain what Miskolczi means when he says that ‘the existence of a stable climate requires a unique surface upward flux density and a unique optical depth of 1.841’ ? (This is a bit of a trick question because Miskolczi himself doesn’t seem to know!)

  140. john byatt says:

    dont seem to hear much of these guys anymore

    Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    geoff does not think that it is fair to put up peer reviewed literature,

    here is a bit more geoff

    read and weep,

    Conclusion
    The alternative greenhouse theory of Miskolczi (2007,2010) results in a constant infrared
    optical depth with time, meaning that there can be no increasing greenhouse effect with time.
    Miskolczi suggests that observations show this ratio to be fixed. However, both observations
    and calculations with physically sound radiative transfer models show that Miskolczi’s theory
    does not stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, there is ample observational evidence that the most
    important greenhouse gases, water vapour and carbon dioxide have increased in the last
    four decades, meaning that the total infrared optical depth is indeed increasing. Finally, direct
    satellite observations of the outgoing infrared spectrum show that the greenhouse effect has
    been enhanced over this period. Even the calculations of Miskolczi show a change of optical
    depth with time. Therefore, neither observations nor radiative transfer theory can support
    Miskolczi;s conclusions.

    like you Geoff thats thickness

  141. Geoff Brown says:

    Gee, John. You’re getting betting at the cut&paste from the RealDeniers sites.

    Congratulations!!

    Well done!

  142. john byatt says:

    that will be the one geoff

    Rebuttal of Miskolczi’s alternative greenhouse theory
    Rob van Dorland
    1
    and Piers M. Forster
    2
    1
    Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, The Netherlands
    2
    School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Miskolczi (2010) theorizes that atmospheric CO2 increases cannot lead to an enhanced
    greenhouse effect and therefore cannot be a cause of global warming. We show his
    theory to be incorrect both in its application of radiation theory and from direct
    atmospheric observations.
    Introduction
    Miskolczi (2007 and 2010) uses complex radiative transfer calculations on 228 measured
    atmospheric profiles of temperature and greenhouse gases to theorize ‘physical rules’ for the
    Earth’s energy balance. He deduces a ‘radiative exchange equilibrium law’, stating that on
    average the downward thermal infrared flux at the Earth’s surface (Ed) and the absorbed
    infrared radiation within the atmosphere (Aa) are equal. Miskolczi, shows that his law implies
    that the Earth’s atmosphere should have a constant infrared optical thickness. Therefore,
    when carbon dioxide concentrations increase, other greenhouse gases should decrease to
    compensate. He then performs additional radiative calculations to suggest that observations
    since 1950 show that this is happening.
    We firstly indentify problems with Miskolczi’s theory and calculations and then show that in
    fact observations do not support his theory. It should be emphasized that we do not criticize
    radiative transfer models since they are based on fundamental well understood physics and
    have been applied in many fields of science, e.g. astronomy. Similar calculations have been
    routinely performed in atmospheric physics and climate studies using radiative models of
    similar complexity and these agree very well with observations.

    http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebuttal_Miskolczi_20100927.pdf

    read another rebuttal at roy spencer , also at eli rabbet ,

    miskolczi’s has no credibility outside of the denialsphere,

    how do you believe that climate change is always occurring when you deny the very mechanism of those changes ?

  143. Geoff Brown says:

    So, Empirical would be like the observations that Dr Ferenc Miskolczi used for his two papers that blew AGW out the window, is that what you mean, John?

  144. john byatt says:

    Empirical ,information gained by means of observation or experiments.

    Observations ,

    Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let’s look at more evidence that we’re responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
    When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
    This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you’d expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).
    Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
    So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What’s the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
    If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth’s surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” (Evans 2006).
    If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).
    Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what’s happening (Jones 2003).
    With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
    An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).

  145. ianash says:

    Roger

    Go back to the Bob Carter school of feckless denialism. The evidence for AGW is presented to you but you are just too much of a gnoron to acknowledge it .

    And your website is a joke. So much denial, so much hatred. Sad. Really sad…

  146. JeffT says:

    But John Byatt,
    With all these models that have predicted events, and presumably empirical evidence is supposed to back up –
    Why can an astrophysicist such as Piers Corbyn give long range predictions of meteoroloigical events, using a laptop, some charts, knowledge of solar and lunar influences, for months ahead, with at least 90% success. And not a CO2 molecule in sight.
    Against the UK Met Office, with super computer modeling, data from UEA CRU (we know how reliable this is ). And they are lucky to predict weather for 3-5 days.
    This has been going on for at least three years. Corbyn 3, UKMet 0.
    Did you enjoy the Forbush Decrease event over the Feb 18 -22, 2011 ?

  147. john byatt says:

    It looks like you need about two up at ABC comments to get one posted , so i have put up two at a time, just swung the bat at cox and de Brere home- run if gets there
    re models
    Cox they have not come true
    De brere, they are not relevant,

  148. john byatt says:

    Regarding the parroted claims that there are no peer reviewed papers linking CO2 and global temperature , nor that humans are the cause of the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 ,

    Lacis, A.A., G.A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R.A. Ruedy, 2010: Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature Science, 330, 356-359, doi:10.1126/science.1190653.

    Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, R.L. Miller, and A.A. Lacis, 2010: The attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287.

    Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, et al., 2008: Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231, doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217.

    Rothman, L.S., I.E. Gordon, A. Barbe, et al., 2009: The HITRAN 2008 molecular spectroscopic database. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 110, 533-572, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.02.013.

    all available at NASA web site ” woger don’t know what empirical means

    The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments. Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation. so we have observation data and experiments that show that CO2 absorbs , reemits phonons of LWR in the CO2 band , we find less LWR from this band being emitted to space than in the past,

    this is empirical evidence,

    woger want a cracker?

    • rogerthesurf says:

      John,

      Did you not read my comment rogerthesurf (05:45:16) : where I clearly explain why the paper you quote cannot be regarded as empirical?
      It is obvious that you have no idea what the word empirical is, and I assure you that any conclusions arrived at based on a mathematical model, which by its very nature has many assumptions built in, do not fit that description.

      For example they use mathematical models to predict the weather! haha

      Frankly I think you should give up, because the fact is that there is no proof of the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis and your somewhat ignorant assertions to the contrary are simply supporting that fact.

      Cheers

      Roger

      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  149. rogerthesurf says:

    John,

    Are you some sort of parrot or something?

    I am waiting for this scientific peer reviewed published paper that shows empirical evidence of the CO2 causation component of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

    As I have said before, I would not expect you to accept any of my assertions without some authority and therre is absolutely no reason why the readeers and myself should accept your unsupported assertions.

    If you do not undestand what I am talking about, please let me know and I will explain further.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  150. rogerthesurf says:

    John,

    I’m still waiting for this empirical evidence that you claim to have.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • john byatt says:

      Here you go roger, most of this is empirical evidence of enhanced greenhouse effect due GHG’S

      Models have successfully predicted:

      That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
      That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
      That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
      That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

      Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
      That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
      The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
      They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

      They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
      The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
      The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
      The expansion of the Hadley cells.

      The poleward movement of storm tracks.
      The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
      The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
      The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
      That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

      So which GHG i hear you ask roger,

  151. elsa says:

    Shall we bring this blog back to the front so that Mr Byatt can address some points rather than being rude about Pete Ridley, who has been banned anyway?

  152. john byatt says:

    roger and geoff, there are 280 global monitoring stns for CO2, NOAA uses 100 of them for its programs http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

    while 2 ppm per year may not sound “‘sharply” it is a rate that has been unprecedented for millions of years, now we know that you guys believe that levels have been all over the place in the past , this was the reason that keeling commenced to push for an accurate measuring stn network, the reason for this is that he fully understood the consequences of rising levels , it was not just for something to do as scientists had been warning of where we were headed for many years, it was stated that we would start to see the warming results by the year 2000, well we actually started to see the results from the 70’s

    Geoff, the posts re Pinker (hoped you sorted cox out] and the list of “model predictions that eventuated”, contained no such terms, yet you still did not post them, sorry geoff but i no longer consider that debate on your blog could proceed without interference, when i posted anonomice i intended to and did put my name up even later you kept repeating that i had not, by not putting my name up at the start you had to concentrate on the substance rather than get involved with personalities,

    one thing that i do not do nor implore others to do is pray , as noted in the antarctic comment, i don’t care if you leave it there or not , it is only to demonstrate your lack of integrity in claiming the author without any evidence whatsoever, It may in fact have been put up to try to cause just such a reaction, personally i don’t care but you have been duded geoff,

    • Geoff Brown says:

      Please don’t misquote, John. “the posts …contained no such terms”
      Using the term denier is derogatory and that it what I removed – but still posted yout last post. As I said before; “Someone called me =monkeybumface= anonymously and I didn’t publish it. I also said that it probably wasn’t you, but while you are posting anonymously, any of these posts could come from anyone.

    • rogerthesurf says:

      Groan,

      Yes there is empirical proof that temperatures change, CO2 concentrations change etc, what is missing you absolute ignoramus is empirical proof of any link between these things.

      Well at least this site is entertaining.

      Cheers

      Roger

      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      Oh yes take a look at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com as well.

  153. Geoff Brown says:

    Mr Byatt says; “Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.”

    Strange, John. Direct observations can find that Co2 is rising…” but sharply, look at the direct observatiosn, John.

    As I have said before, any posts made on the TCS blog using the degrading term “deniers” will not be posted. You might be making a good point but if you include the abusive term “deniers” they won’t be published.

  154. john byatt says:

    you are referred to skeptical science everyday roger and the sites links to papers for all claims, they are the blue highlighted words roger ,

    Empirical evidence
    There’s no empirical evidence
    “There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence.” (David Evans)
    What the science says…
    Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

    • rogerthesurf says:

      John,

      For a start, Skeptical Science is hardly a scientific or reliable source. I came across a teenager a few months ago who claimed to be on the Skeptical Science team for heavens sake.

      And of course there is no empirical evidence, they got that right at least, but then they go on to say “Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity”.
      Well that is empirical evidence, so either they produce the papers that support this or they should retire in their own confusion and self contradictions.
      The papers you site do not appear empirical in the least, especially if they all rely on someones model to produce their “facts”.

      If you find a better paper, I will take the time to study it though, because unlike you, I am open to real evidence and am prepared to modify my beliefs and thinking based on verifiable truths.

      Cheers

      Roger

      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • elsa says:

      Forgive me for saying so but I think you should keep quiet about Dunning Kruger, John. You have suggested to me that 17 models with different assumptions “prove” CO2 driven global warming. How you believe that they can all do so is something of a mystery.

      Here Roger expresses a view abot models with which I agree. Your response is to say nothing about models but to say that various direct observations “give a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming”. I would agree that this bit of evidence gives some (probably quite limited) comfort to the CO2 warmist view. But I would harly say it gave the degree of empirical evidence that is so frequently claimed. Is this the only bit you can find? Do you now accept the models do not give the evidence that you claim? Can you explain how you have been able to disentangle all of the various influences on climate so that you can attribute eg x degrees to CO2?

  155. rogerthesurf says:

    John,

    I had a good look at the first paper you stated, which from its position on top of the list, I assume as being the most convincing to you.

    All I can suggest is that you should do some research on the meaning of “empirical” as the use of models in research can never be empirical.

    I think the paper’s claims, seeing as how they are based on someone elses model, of “Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.” and then rely on the (GISS) ModelE to show “show that water vapor provides the strongest climate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs” when that contraversial issue would have been built into the model they were using.
    So not only is the paper non empirical, it also has a lot of assumptions as a base as well.

    In other words, you havent found any empirical evidence on the CO2 causation link yet, just another hypothesis.
    Good luck searching though.

    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
    ps

    “A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
    – Roy Clark

    A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
    – William Kininmonth”

    Where is the contradiction here? Did you actually take the trouble to read the papers?

    • john byatt says:

      Roger i really hate referring to people with the dunning kruger tag but it is the only one that can account for this absurdity that you persist with, you are not telling me to look up the word empirical you are telling four of the worlds top scientists that they do not understand the word,
      roger, go away ,work out your problem then come back with something that at least makes some sense, i do find you amusing but you display such limited understanding of anything roger, try to make a clear logical argument for just what you believe and why, your rambling confusion probably explains why even the crazies do not comment on your blog ,

      dont think you will pick up any customers here roger , try the crazy jo nova blog , sad

  156. elsa (12:23:21) – “Rather they start with the assumption that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature which is then fitted to the data with other factors added in so that the the end prediction fits the actual outturn.”

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    I won’t say what this sounds like.
    However, care to detail and support your claim?

    Incidentally, how much direct experience in working with climate models might you possess?

    • elsa says:

      The problem CC is that there is no other way of doing it. We cannot, for example, take an equation derived from physics about the relationship between CO2 and temperature plug it into the models and use it, because we don’t have such an equation. We have to start from the belief that there is a relationship and then use what is really only a trial and error process to come to an estimate of what the relationship is. Actually in most cases the models do not even try to establish a relationship between eg the concentration of CO2 and the temperature, they aim for a relationship between the change in CO2 and the change in temperature.

      I will freely admit that I have not worked on climate models but I have worked on economic ones (which are similar in their approach and equally dangerous in their pretence of knowledge) and read about the climate ones.

      If we were able to start with sets of equations derived from outside the models the position would be entirely different. But since we cannot do that we should not pretend that the models “prove” anything. In effect we use the models to find equations which work, but we cannot claim they are right because there are so many sets of possible equations that give the “right” answer.

  157. yea, yea, yea
    “there” not their

  158. elsa,
    what you seem to miss is that the models are not their to predict the future with 100% accuracy which is what seem to be demanding.

    The models are their to help us understand the dynamics and potentials within the system.

    The problem with the denialist community is that rather than trying to use models as scientific tools to help us better understand climate dynamics ~ you’ve turned it into a ruthless war of politic agendas – with the denialist agenda being more important than getting an honest grasp on what is happening within our global climate… considering the chemical injections resulting from nearly seven billion GHG, etc. spewing humans.

    • elsa says:

      I think you misunderstand the way these models are put together. They do not start with eg a decent approximate knowledge of the relationship between CO2 and temperature which can then be fed into the model and tested. Rather they start with the assumption that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature which is then fitted to the data with other factors added in so that the the end prediction fits the actual outturn. But when we work that way round we prove nothing at all and the fact that any number of models, with in some cases very different assumptions, can supposedly all make correct predictions should be a cause for doubting them, not for taking them as a tool that has somehow demonstrated the link between CO2 and temperature.

      Whatever the actual forces behind changes in climate you simply cannot use models like these to “prove” your science. As I have written elsewhere the genuinely scientific warmists are quite honest about this and freely acknowledge that the models do not do what they are very widely credited with doing.

  159. elsa says:

    Adelady, the point of the word unique is this: we can use models to see what the outcomes of various different assumptions are (models are not and cannot be learning tools). It may well be that we find a set of assumptions fits what has actually happened, indeed this is to be expected because the assumptions are altered until they do so, that is what the modellers do. But then we find that many different sets of assumptions fit what has actually happened, so there is no unique explanation of climate change, indeed many of the warmist models explain increases in temperature by “aerosols” rather more than they do by CO2. But therein lies a demonstration of their weakness. If they all explain climate change but are all different (as is the case) we know that at least all but one of them must be wrong and in my view probably all of them are wrong. This is why I keep banging on at Moth with the question “how do you work out the individual effect of each of the influences on climate?” Unless you can answer that question you cannot begin to claim that you know CO2 is the root cause. Yet the truth is we have no method of disaggregating the various components of climate change.

    • john byatt says:

      “But no model is ‘correct’ and no forecast is perfect. The question instead is whether a model is useful or whether a forecast was skillful (relative to a naive alternative). Both of these are answered with a yes. We can even go one step further – what climate sensitivity would have given a perfect forecast given the actual (as opposed to projected) forcings? The answer is 3.3 deg C for a doubling of CO2. that is a useful thing to know, no? – gavin Schmidt.

      NASA climatologist,

      so who do i place my understanding with, one of the brightest professors in the world or some sock puppet posting forum commentator , give a second to guess, you sound a lot like roger, elsa , might just be me though

      • elsa says:

        A model might be useful to test whether a set of assumptions gives a reasonably accurate forecast. That would be particularly the case if the assumptions were arrived at independently of the model. But that is not what the modellers do. They have no starting point that says a concentration x% CO2 will give a temperature of Y degrees. They have to fit the data to the model. But you cannot do that and then look at the results and say that because the predictions were right it in some way “proves” the assumptions are correct. That argument is a circular one but is exactly the sort of argument that is used to “prove” the warmist view (and some other eg sunspot views too incidentally).

        I have no idea what you mean by a model being skilful. In once sense it must be because it requires some relatively sophisticated abilities. But when you come to make predictions for the future (such as the 3.3 deg C that you mention) an honest scientist should admit that we have no such knowledge at all and to pretend otherwise is not skilful at all, it is either dishonest or stupid.

        You ought to think about the question I have posed above. How do you disentangle the effects of the various influences on climate? Without an answer to that you and every NASA climatologist, no matter how bright, cannot make the claims to knowledge that you do and calling me names will not alter that very simple piece of logic.

        And no I am not Roger.

  160. john byatt says:

    We use data to show that the world is warming and physics to explain why,

    models are learning tools , the current models are based on three emission scenarios , if the scenarios are not correct, as they cannot be then the models can never be correct, the model that has the actual emission scenario closest to what is happening is the one that we learn most from,

    http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html

  161. The part that gets on my nerves is the denial community is constantly screaming how useless models are, even if those models have gone through dozens of years of evolution.

    But here is Roy Spencer using high school level models. Then standing there with a straight face, claiming his calculations overthrow decades, heck over a century’s worth of climatology study and understanding.

    But his models the “skeptical” echo-chamber will gladly embrace.

    • elsa says:

      I am sorry to say that your post reveals how little you understand about models. On this subject Roy Spencer is very clear and completely right. A model cannot demonstrate that eg the world is warming as a result of more CO2. That is just simply not what a model, no matter how “evolved” can do. The very fact that you use the plural in fact proves the point. If all the models can apparently explain the climate but all use different assumptions it only shows that none of them offer a unique solution to the explanation. But unless you can offer a unique solution (which actually is completely beyond our current science) you cannot make a claim to know why the world is warming.

      • adelady says:

        Come on, elsa, keep up. Dr Spencer is using =his model= to show that other people are wrong to use =their models=.

        I have no idea what the word unique has got to do with all of this. But the point is, it’s inconsistent to try to show that models are wrong – by using a model.

        (Personally I’d go beyond inconsistent to incoherent but that’s just me.)

  162. john byatt says:

    roy the boy
    his was on his blog just prior to his latest paper,

    roy’s problem is not letting the science tell him but instead looking rather for a predetermined outcome, not the scientific method, he has a theory that the earth will always correct itself to a climate suitable for humans , in effect this is a young earth , god will fix it view,
    his main argument how this will be achieved is from the negative feedbacks from clouds, despite research papers showing that cloud feedback is positive over the short and midterm (100 years) , roy is still obsessed by his theory,
    he has actually torn Miskolczi apart and anyone else that disputes CO2 theory
    his anti AGW stance must be seen in that light,

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
    September 3, 2010 at 3:32 AM
    I said the fears of catastrophic warming were a LITTLE like the fears of a black hole swallowing the Earth. I’m using hyperbole to make a point.

    If I was asked to assign a “probability”, I would say the probability of AGW exceeding several degrees C is less than 10%….BUT that is more a measure of my FAITH, since the hard evidence is lacking…I don’t think the science can support probabilities in the usual sense here.

    So, I suppose the lack of evidence means I’m agnostic from the standpoint of hard evidence. But my gut feeling based upon the general tendency for nature to stabilize itself against outside influences puts me solidly in the skeptic category.

    Does that make sense? I at least admit I am going largely on faith here, in contrast to the IPCC which has fooled themselves into believing they have science on their side. Remember, I also have research results — as yet unpublished — that shows the satellite data reveals short-term feedback behavior outside the range of ALL of the climate models.

    • elsa says:

      I think you show your own lack of understanding of Roy Spencer’s position in this post. He admits that he does not know – his view on future climate change is he says a matter of faith, as indeed is the warmist one. They however are not prepared to call it faith, they claim to have science on their side. But if you had read and understood his articles on climate models you would see that this is a matter of self delusion. There is no way a climate model can prove the CO2 (or any other forcing) driven global warming, however much you may want it to.
      Ask yourself the second of the questions that I have asked Moth. How are you going to disentangle the effects of each of the possible factors (known and unknown) that may affect climate? It is just not possiblr to do it.

      • john byatt says:

        Spencer uses models, you asked for actual papers previously and you where given them , seem to have gone quiet on that issue, do you ever actually resolve anything ,

        Spencer accepts that AGW will result in at least 2DegC, you read that in his quote yet it still has not sunk in, has it?

        you simple repeat “answer questions that i have asked Moth” , when you are given the answers you repeat the request ,

        i have plenty of time but do you really want to learn or just believe that you already know it all?

  163. Carter quoting JoNova, isn’t he a scientist, if geologist and a bit kooky? What’s he finding at JoNova? I’ll admit I haven’t spent much time at her site, but what I have has been revolting.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    FYI regarding Roy Spencer
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html
    ~ ~ ~

    Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
    Posted on 1 March 2011 by bbickmore

    The following is reposted from Barry Bickmore’s blog – it’s PART 2 of my extended critique of Roy Spencer’s The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists(New York: Encounter Books, 2010). If you haven’t read Part 1, you should probably do so before reading this.

    Summary of Part 2: Roy Spencer repeatedly claims that most of the rest of the climate science community deliberately ignores natural sources of climate variation, but then contradicts himself by launching an inept attack on the standard explanation for climate change during the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last million years (i.e., they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles).

    The problems Spencer identifies are either red herrings or have been resolved, however, and he proposes no other explanation to take the place of the standard one. In fact, climate scientists have used paleoclimate data such as that for the ice ages to show that climate sensitivity is likely to be close to the range the IPCC favors. Therefore, it appears Roy Spencer is the one who wants to sweep established sources of natural climate variation under the rug.”
    ~ ~ ~

  164. john byatt says:

    To paraphrase Roy , on his blog

    “I know that i have been banging on about clouds for four years now but i still believe that i am correct, I just can’t prove it, i accept now that my 2009 paper contained errors,

    the Kleptics believe that Spencer and Lindzen have gone over to the AGW side yet they have never changed their view ,

    AGW is real
    it is due to Human CO2 emissions,
    outcomes are overstated

    this is to help them keep some credibility unlike Carter who is a complete nutter and cites crazy Jo Nova as a scientific source in his letter to Combet

  165. Oh, Roy Spencer says. Now there’s a trusty authority.

    Want some interesting reading?
    Check this out:
    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/

    “The following is PART 1 of an extended critique of Roy Spencer’s The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (New York: Encounter Books, 2010). See also Part 2. Previous critiques of Spencer’s general approach to climate have been published by Ray Pierrehumbert and Tamino (here, here, and here). My Utah readers will remember that Roy Spencer was invited to testify before a committee of the Utah Legislature last year.”
    ~ ~ ~

    It is a worthy informative well written science expose.

  166. john byatt says:

    When this paper appeared in the literature CC,

    Lacis, A.A., G.A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R.A. Ruedy, 2010: Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature Science, 330, 356-359, doi:10.1126/science.1190653.

    Roy Spencer remarked that it only contained already established science, “there was nothing new in it”

    Gavin replied that it needed to be stated in the one paper,

  167. Well, cool John, that’s a handy reference list. Thanks for putting that together.

    ~ ~ ~
    Roger says:
    “Do not refer me to irrelevant links and blogs and do not refer me to SkepticalScience of which I have never found any more evidence than vague correlations hidden under the well written but empty narrative.”
    ~ ~ ~

    Seems to me SkepticalScience is filled with reference to peer-reviewed studies. Why haven’t you noticed all those links and citations and references that I know are there? Have you even tried to look at their articles and forum discussions with an impartial eyes? You could learn a lot.

  168. john byatt says:

    roger, re ypur list of papers
    here are two of them in the order posted

    A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
    – Roy Clark

    A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
    – William Kininmonth

    so a null hypothesies paper followed by one that contradicts it ,

  169. john byatt says:

    Elsa

    “I think underneath all of this is an acknowledegement on your part that warmist theory cannot pass the Popper test and would be interested for your views on this. You seems to say it cannot pass the test but that does not matter because the Popper test is not the right one.”

    we see it rain, the water always comes down ,it never goes up therefore
    water cycle fails the popper test,

    rubbish, science can explain why the rain comes down and also how it got up there in the first place, exactly how we can explain that temperature rise can lead to CO2 rise and how CO2 rise can increase temperature, as stated its the wrong test to apply ,

  170. john byatt says:

    Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global
    climate change research
    Prosenjit Ghosh, Willi A. Brand

    Isotopen- und Gaslabor, Max-Planck-Institut für Biogeochemie, Postfach 100164, Jena 07701, Germany
    Received 29 January 2003; accepted 20 May 2003
    Abstract
    Stable isotope ratios of the life science elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen vary slightly, but significantly in
    major compartments of the earth. Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning,
    the
    13
    C/
    12
    C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about
    0.0111073 to 0.0110906). In between interglacial warm periods and glacial maxima, the
    18
    O/
    16
    O ratio of precipitation in
    Greenland has changed by as much as 5 parts per thousand (0.001935–0.001925). While seeming small, such changes are
    detectable reliably with specialised mass spectrometric techniques. The small changes reflect natural fractionation processes
    that have left their signature in natural archives. These enable us to investigate the climate of past times in order to understand
    how the Earth’s climatic system works and how it can react to external forcing. In addition, studying contemporary isotopic
    change of natural compartments can help to identify sources and sinks for atmospheric trace gases provided the respective
    isotopic signatures are large enough for measurement and have not been obscured by unknown processes. This information
    is vital within the framework of the Kyoto process for controlling CO2 emissions.

  171. john byatt says:

    Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

    John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

    Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
    Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: j.harries@ic.ac.uk).

    Top of page
    The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth’s greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

  172. john byatt says:

    a couple more roger

    Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

    Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

    Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

    Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text]

    Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004) “Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

    Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

    On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.”

    Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995) “Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10–470 cm−1 are compared.”

    The HITRAN database: 1986 edition – Rothman et al. (1987) “A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.”

    Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers – Miller & Watts (1984) “High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.”

    Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide – Tubbs & Williams (1972) “An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters γ0 for lines in the R branch of the ν3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of γ0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section σ.”

    Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970) “From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.”

    Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969) “The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm−1. … New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.”

    High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966) “Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.”

    Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al. (1964) “Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm−1 to 2575 cm−1.”

    Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ – Davies (1964) “The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.”

    Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.”

    Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “Total absorptance… has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm−1.”

    Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) “The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.”

    The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932) “The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental ν1 appears only in combination bands, but ν2 at 15μ and ν3 at 4.3μ absorb intensely.”

    Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red – Barker (1922) “Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 μ. – New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 μ region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 μ and 2.767 μ. The 4.3 μ band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 μ. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 μ region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a “head” in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 μ band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

    Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre – Ångström (1900)

    Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum – Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) “Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near λ = 14.7 μ. … The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 μ to 16 μ, with the maximum at 14.7 μ.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

    On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours – Lecher & Pernter (1881) Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: “Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part.”.

    The Bakerian Lecture – On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction – Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text] [Wikipedia: John Tyndall]

  173. Roger don’t suppose you’ve ever spent any time over at SkepticalScience.com
    check it out Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

    Just repeating “I can’t hear you”, sounds like a Creationist tactic.

    I’ve got a pal over at SkepticForum who has the same mantra no matter what one places in front of him. He’s gotten me to thinking about that other definition of a skeptic: “an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.”
    ~ ~ ~

    {PS. regarding your link Tim Ball’s description is pretty twisted}
    A little background on Ball:
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
    http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-friends-of-science-emerge-as-the-natural-resources-stewardship-project
    http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit
    http://www.andrewkantor.com/2007-02/timothy-ball-opinion-without-evidence/

    • rogerthesurf says:

      CitizensChallenge,

      ““The physics of CO2 make clear that observed increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 would lead to increasing global temperatures. This conclusion was, and is, unavoidable given that greenhouse gases inhibit loss of warmth – like a blanket. By increasing atmospheric CO2 we’re basically making our planet’s blanket thicker. It’s well-understood physics.””

      This assertion that you make is so bald that I cannot believe you can make a statement like that in a public forum without having some very excellent academic, peer reviewed, published scientific paper(s) to support it.

      If there is such a paper, it would fulfil the first requirement option of proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” that I outlined in my comment “rogerthesurf (20:57:05) :” above.

      Now instead of producing your evidence, you are side stepping the question exactly as John Byatt has done so far.

      Do not refer me to irrelevant links and blogs and do not refer me to SkepticalScience of which I have never found any more evidence than vague correlations hidden under the well written but empty narrative.

      Refer me directly to academic published, peer reviewed papers which support your statement!
      I would not expect you to believe any assertion of mine without at least one proper reference, you should not expect me and the readers to believe you without similar authority.

      Cheers

      Roger

      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • john byatt says:

        Lacis, A.A., G.A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R.A. Ruedy, 2010: Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature Science, 330, 356-359, doi:10.1126/science.1190653.

        Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, R.L. Miller, and A.A. Lacis, 2010: The attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287.

        Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, et al., 2008: Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231, doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217.

        Rothman, L.S., I.E. Gordon, A. Barbe, et al., 2009: The HITRAN 2008 molecular spectroscopic database. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 110, 533-572, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.02.013.

  174. Ben Wolf says:

    Roger, proofs exist in mathematics, not science. Stop misusing the language.

  175. Geoff, what are we to make of that link you just shared. Here is how you go at the discussion:

    “They (Mike?) have made a false statement here. Denying the reality of Global Warming? No, we KNOW that the Globe has been warming since it came out of the Little Ice Age (LIA) ~1850. Do the “watchers” deny the MWP and the LIA. If you take these events into account, the late twentieth century warming is not unusual.
    “The Climategate Cabal tried to suppress these events in order to make the 20th century warming look more striking to scare the populace. . .”
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Just the way you frame the MWP and LIA shows a lack of understanding of their significant or known causes or how they relate to today’s observed changes.

    “The ClimateGate Cabalist”, reads like you are involved in a political war, rather than trying to learn about what is going on within our atmosphere and climate, you know, that life support system of ours.

    Why that obviously contempt for establishment climatology?

    Do you think business as usual is the way to head into our future?

    And what do you think of all the incoming Earth Observation data? Is all that stuff just fabricated?

    • rogerthesurf says:

      citizenschallenge,

      I’m still waiting for the peer reviewed, published scientific paper(s) that prove the causation we have been talking about. I mean you wouldn’t believe me if I made an unsupported statement of any sort so why should any of the readers believe you?

      Cheers

      Roger

      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  176. Geoff Brown says:

    You were never polite Mr Byatt but adding a mistruth like Goons shows a nasty side. Did you cringe after you made this post? “Hard in a short letter not to overstate or understate” the science,” you say. However, it would be good if you tried to address the science and not write platitudes.

  177. john byatt says:

    Don’t worry about it CC this ain’t a spelling or grammar forum, I often read back one of my posts and go EH!, what the hell was i talking about,

    Another letter to the editor in the regional paper this morning from me replying to Leon Ashby of “The Climate Goons’, I might spend an hour on them and even when they are printed i sometimes cringe when reading them , hard in a short letter not to overstate or understate the science, WE try

  178. I hate blogs without an edit function, I’m a bit dyslexic or something.
    So how about reading: “A game that ignores ocean WARMING.”

    sorry Mike, except for this one, I like Watching The Deniers! :-)
    I’ll try to be more cautious with that post button.
    Peter

  179. elsa (17:03:09) :

    I think you mean global temperatures falling etc. rather than warming. {…snip…} as the cooling in the 20th century example discussed above demonstrates.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    What’s up with that? What about:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    There was an extreme spike in ’98, during a previously uphill trend. Since then we’ve returned to the previous uphill trend – to claim the past decade has seen cooling is a statistical game focus on one plot point… intellectual dishonesty I’d say.

    … A game that ignores ocean cooling, which has been document to go deeper and warmer than anyone previously suspected.
    Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
    Posted on 18 February 2011 by Ari Jokimäki
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/deep_ocean_warming.html
    {I hope you don’t think of skepticalscience as an bad guy or anything}
    ~ ~ ~
    … A game that also ignores the state of that ultimate of thermometers our Cryosphere. Look where ever you want in this data, it shows melting and warming: http://nsidc.org/sotc/

  180. john byatt says:

    I read that a long time ago elsa, why do you presume that we have not?

    You claim that they are scared stiff for some unknown reason

    i claim that they are scared stiff for their grandchildren,

    Why do you believe that aerosols and clouds could be running the show somehow falsifies AGW ? if doubling CO2 without feedbacks only leads to an increase of 1.1DegC, then possible temperature increases with feedbacks at 4.5DegC would certainly show that such could indeed be running the show,

    your lack of understanding is the problem here, i suggest that you might email one the the scientists for a better explanation, better still post it at real climate , they are there to help also,

    Scared now ? lets remove scared stiff to try to shift the goalpost eh?

    • elsa says:

      The opinions you refer to were not given by me, they were given by James Lovelock. So I suggest you contact him if you think he needs to review his understanding. Personally I think he is right.

  181. elsa says:

    The opinion expressed is not one from horrible old denier me but from one of your mentors Prof. James Lovelock. You have omitted the next part which I have set out above. The full quote reads:
    “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet”.
    I can find more if you wish from the same article. I think it is quite clear that he meant they are scared that their science may be weak not that things may be even worse than they thought.

  182. john byatt says:

    Elsa “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. ”

    this is true , they are scared stiff because studying past climates with elevated CO2 shows that we may be underestimating future warming, they are not scared stiff that future warming may be less than research shows ,

    Do you really think they would be scared stiff for some other reason ?

  183. Oh those dastardly typos, sorry for not paying closer attention.
    ~ ~ ~
    What gets me is the stranger’n stranger contortions denials go through.
    They burn up the clock focusing on their pet machinations rather than rolling up their sleeves, getting real and looking at the incoming Earth Observation data.

    On top of that they think that with some dabbling they can judge an expert a fraud. The worst part is they take themselves serious.

    A part of skepticism is being aware of ones own follies and blind spot and being open to new information informing a new understanding.

    • elsa says:

      Well in that case I shall look forward to your answers to the two questions that I set for Moth which are set out above.

      • FOR ALL OTHER READERS: I’m certain Elsa is a paid trolled to spread BS on the subject of climate change, for no-one else would persist on the same two irrational notes unless they either needed attention or were a paid misinformer.

        She doesn’t deserve your attention.

      • john byatt says:

        moths , if you read the Geffs comments you would be forgiven for believing that they are paid trolls, ignorance repeated to inflame ,
        we know where boths Geffs originate ,

        bottom line. both trolls and the Climate kleptics are identical in comments , you cannot tell who is who

        ,

      • john byatt says:

        NO1

        elsa (10:01:10) :
        I am not sure if you have understood what my case is. I have not denied that the world has warmed (a bit)

        NO2

        elsa (17:03:09) :
        I think you mean global temperatures falling etc. rather than warming.

        NOW
        that does look like a troll for sure but it also looks like a mental problem

        any trikcycalists out there?

  184. “The physics of CO2 make clear that observed increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 would lead to increasing global temperatures. This conclusion was, and is, unavoidable given that greenhouse gases inhibit loss of warmth – like a blanket. By increasing atmospheric CO2 we’re basically making our planet’s blanket thicker. It’s well-understood physics.”
    ~ ~ ~
    Who has an argument with that statement?
    Who here is saying that this basic physics false?
    If you, on what basis are you making that claim?
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    “Where things get complex is in mapping the full scope of the cascading effects following from the atmosphere’s increasing temperature and humidity. This is where theories and models come into play,
    but theories and models need to be tested and refined.
    Something the increasing flood of incoming data has been making possible.”
    ~ ~ ~
    What about that ultimate planetary thermometer, our cryosphere?
    And other real planet observations?
    On what basis do you dismiss and ignore that data flow, while your weaving pet theories?

    • rogerthesurf says:

      “The physics of CO2 make clear that observed increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 would lead to increasing global temperatures. This conclusion was, and is, unavoidable given that greenhouse gases inhibit loss of warmth – like a blanket. By increasing atmospheric CO2 we’re basically making our planet’s blanket thicker. It’s well-understood physics.”

      Great!
      You have a peer reviewed published scientific paper that shows and proves causation then?
      Please give me the link I wish to read it!

      BTW correlations are not proof of anything. I learnt that in my freshman statistics class as a basic fact.

      Cheers

      Roger
      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  185. elsa says:

    What I want is for the warmist lobby of the type represented on sites like this to understand how weak their case is. I do not believe in god for exactly the same reason that I do not believe at all in the AGW hysterical (there is another one of which a little below) case: neither theory is a testable proposition. I am not prepared to accept god because we cannot test his existence. Why would I want to believe in such a concept? Equally we cannot test the CO2 driven warming hypothesis. I quite accept that with more CO2 the world will, other things being equal, be warmer. But when we are asked to say how much we should be honest and say that we have no idea at all. The claims that we know that with x% more CO2 the world will be y degrees warmer is complete voodoo and no self respecting scientist should go near such ideas. Only people who have no understanding of what is involved or who wish to mislead would say such things. The more scientific warmists I have every sympathy with. James Lovelock for example is very clear on all of this. He says “What right have the scientists with their models to say that in 2100 the temperature will have risen by 5C? There are plenty of incidences where something turns on the heat, but temperatures actually go down perversely, before eventually going up. A cold winter may mean nothing, as could 10 cold winters in a row. The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet”. I could not agree more with this, yet this site along with the likes of Mr Wayne and Moth persist in the view that the “science” is a finished case and cannot be disputed.

    • J Bowers says:

      “neither theory is a testable proposition.”

      Wanna bet?

      Global mean temperature continuing to rise over the next 30 years.
      The troposphere continuing to warm.
      The stratosphere continuing to cool.
      Nights continuing to warm faster than days.

      There you go, it’s a testable hypothesis.

      • elsa says:

        I think you mean global temperatures falling etc. rather than warming. The problem is that there are many influences on climate apart from CO2 which enables the CO2 warmist theory to survive even prolonged periods of cooling. Because we are unable to isolate the effects of CO2 we cannot falsify the theory, as the cooling in the 20th century example discussed above demonstrates.

  186. john byatt says:

    elsa you seem to want the warming not to be due to CO2 for some reason, have you asked yourself why that is,
    is it a guilt, is it a belief that a god would not allow such a thing to happen,
    have you read the aip history of atmospheric CO2, what is there in that where you disagree, both spencer and lindzen accept the theory of CO2 heating the planet , roy believes that the clouds will compensate and lindzen believes that all papers that find the doubling of CO2 resulting in about 3degc warming to be wrong, but has not produced a rigorous paper to dispute that

    when the science can and has explained the theory , has 17 model predictions confirmed, which is not just correlation, they confirm GHG warming, and only GHG warming as opposed to any other
    so you have to accept that at least one or more of the GHGs are responsible

    you need more than saying that the null hypothesis is the cause when you dont even know what it might be, ask yourself why?

  187. john byatt says:

    page 41of link
    lower limit.
    Finally, solar radiation has also increased in the twentieth century, with a best
    estimate of 0.3 W/m2
    (although recent work argues that this estimate could be
    much too high).
    23
    Adding that to the denominator, we obtain 0.8°C  (3.7 W/m2
    /(
    (1.3 W/m2
    ) = 2.3°C. Thus whether we consider greenhouse gases alone, greenhouse gases plus aerosols, or these plus solar forcing, a simple back-of-the-envelope
    estimate shows that, in each case, observed warming is entirely consistent with the
    IPCC climate sensitivity range, as long as ocean heat uptake is not ignored. The
    reverse is also true: climate sensitivity smaller than the IPCC range, as proposed by
    Lindzen, is in all three cases inconsistent with the observed twentieth-century
    warming. Thus Lindzen’s own argument, if carried out correctly by accounting
    for ocean heat uptake, disproves the very point he attempts to make.
    24
    Let us come back to ensemble estimates. A recent study conducted

    • elsa says:

      All of these again point to just how complicated a matter this is. You need to think of the second question that I posed for Moth “how do you disentangle the various influences (known and unknown) on temperature?” My view is that you cannot. No-one here has even attempted to answer that question. But unless you can answer it you cannot make the claim to know that CO2 and mankind have been the main drivers of temperature change.

      • J Bowers says:

        * Ben Santer on the attribution of extreme weather events to climate change
        * On attribution

        In fact the process is more sophisticated than these misconceptions imply and I’ll go over the main issues below. But the executive summary is this:

        * You can’t do attribution based only on statistics
        * Attribution has nothing to do with something being “unprecedented”
        * You always need a model of some sort
        * The more distinct the fingerprint of a particular cause is, the easier it is to detect

        Note that it helps enormously to think about attribution in contexts that don’t have anything to do with anthropogenic causes. For some reason that allows people to think a little bit more clearly about the problem.

        [...]

        So how might this work in practice? Take the impact of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991. Examination of the temperature record over this period shows a slight cooling, peaking in 1992-1993, but these temperatures were certainly not ‘unprecedented’, nor did they exceed the bounds of observed variability, yet it is well accepted that the cooling was attributable to the eruption. Why? First off, there was a well-observed change in the atmospheric composition (a layer of sulphate aerosols in the lower stratosphere). Models ranging from 1-dimensional radiative transfer models to full GCMs all suggest that these aerosols were sufficient to alter the planetary energy balance and cause global cooling in the annual mean surface temperatures. They also suggest that there would be complex spatial patterns of response – local warming in the lower stratosphere, increases in reflected solar radiation, decreases in outgoing longwave radiation, dynamical changes in the northern hemisphere winter circulation, decreases in tropical precipitation etc. These changes were observed in the real world too, and with very similar magnitudes to those predicted. Indeed many of these changes were predicted by GCMs before they were observed.

  188. john byatt says:

    wont copy should be Zedillo_2008.pdf

  189. john byatt says:

    elsa , you do not seem to have read much on internal variability nor seem to understand that the majority of the heating is going into the ocean , a new paper looks at the air temp cooling in the forties and suggests that it may be due to the a bombings in japan, it still only remains as variability and nothing more than that,

    just as it takes time for your hot coffee to cool to the atmosphere it also takes decades for the ocean heat to cool to the atmosphere and reach equilibrium , that means that there is already an extra .6DegC in the pipeline,

    the equilibrium between incoming energy from the sun and outgoing energy will never be reached until greenhouse gases stabilise and all feebacks settle ,

    there is nothing in a short mid century cooling that backs your case,

    read http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

    • elsa says:

      I am not sure if you have understood what my case is. I have not denied that the world has warmed (a bit) nor have I denied that the concentartion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. All I have said is that the warmist lobby makes claims to knowledge that they do not actually possess. Their theory is not scientific because it is consistent with every movement (up and down) of temperature rendering it beyond falsification. What you state above is not inconsistent with thsi view. In effect you say the matter is very complicated, that there are all sorts of influences on tempearure, that heat can be absorbed by the sea etc etc. But when you say that you undermine your own certainty. If it is that complicated (which I completely accept) you cannot make the claim that you know that such warming of the atmosphere as has taken place is CO2 driven. You want to have it both ways but both sets of ideas cannot be true.

      • john byatt says:

        You are looking at short term up and downs when you should be looking at the longterm trend , this is up and accelerating

  190. john byatt says:

    Elsa you need to change tack, the US congress now accepts that the Planet is warming and that it is due to fossil fuels, the new chant of the congress is now that “extremes to date with warming of .8DegC has not been too bad so prudence tells us that future warming from increasing fossil fuel emissions will not result in extremes that we cannot adapt too ”

    In other words you are on your own,

    • elsa says:

      I am not sure when the US Congress became the one true judge of scientific matters and I rather doubt that if they had decided the other way that you would accept it, so please don’t ask me to.

  191. elsa says:

    Some weeks ago I asked Mothincarnate, a regular poster on this site, two questions:
    1. what event could take place that would prove his CO2 driven global warming hypothesis wrong? and
    2. how has he been able to disentangle the various influences (known and unknown) on temperature?
    After several completely false starts Moth decided to make a new effort after I pointed out to him that the temperature fell in the mid 20th century even though the CO2 level kept on rising.
    I have been flattered to feature as the subject of one of Moth’s bigger and better attacks. I missed this while I was away and so am now going to comment here, as Moth, with the finest disregard for the rules of scientific enquiry, has banned (or sometimes accepted but altered) the comments that I make on his site.
    The initial response of Moth to the question of mid 20th century cooling was to deny that it took place. Unfortunately for him Mr Graham Wayne (another censorist who describes his deletion of contrary views as “moderation”) had at roughly that time published a graph of temperatures with the mid century dip clearly shown. This was even though the graph he used adopted the well known norm of a 133 month rolling average, which the uncharitable might have thought was a bit odd.
    In his new post, centred on me, Moth shows us his skills by producing a graph. Naturally the main line is on of CO2 concentration which shows a steady year on year increase. There are then various average temperature blocks picked for periods of Moth’s choosing. For reasons that I do not understand he says I am fixated with 20 year periods. To put the record straight I can assure him that I am not. His 20 year periods are coloured to stand out. Faintly in the background we are allowed (just) to see the thing that we are disputing, temperature. Now when we look at this, unadulterated by Moth’s statistical exertions, we can see one thing very clearly: in complete contrast to the CO2 line the temperature line fluctuates. It rises early on and peaks in or around 1943. Thereafter it declines so that by 1964 it is no higher than it had been some 80 years earlier and it remains low until 1976 showing a rise thereafter. During all of this 80 year period Moth’s CO2 level increases year after year yet he has no trouble in seeing that this period of no warming (or more accurately warming then cooling) coupled with regular CO2 increase as evidence that the AGW theory is right. The reader might well ask if Moth would have done better to acquaint himself with some of the warmist literature on the 20th century decline, rather than seeking to discover it for himself anew. The explanation that he gives for the cooling (which he does at least now seem to accept took place) is that at this time there was a depression and a war that slowed the rate of CO2 increase. The logical conclusion from this being presumably that all we need to do is to slow the rate of CO2 increase and the temperature will decline.
    Moth then attempts to answer the first of my two questions. He says
    “The answer would be to the Elsa clone army that debunking the theory of AGW would require just one of above points of evidence to fall flat on their arse, but so far, the trends do what we expect with an atmosphere with increasing CO2 concentration. The world hasn’t cooled, unless you use cheap tricks to hide”. But there is no need for a cheap trick. Moth has only to look at his own graph. Temperatures fell from 1943 or so while CO2 concentartions increased. In its most simplistic form the theory is debunked.
    Moth then makes the now obligatory comment about vaccinations. Why he always raises this subject is a mystery to me. I have never suggested that vaccinations were bad or unscientific, yet in almost every reply to me or comment about me the subject of vaccinations is raised.
    Finally I note Moth makes no comment at all on my second question. This is odd because it is only by giving an answer to the second question that Moth could demonstrate that he has the knowledge that he claims to have about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. But on this second question he has never even attempted a reply.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Re point 1) and falsification.

      You are a unreformed Popparian.

      You are barking up the wrong tree.

      Actually, you’ve gone down a dead end.

      To be polite, you’ve missing the point.

      The “falsification” theory, as proposed by Karl Popper is interesting but is now regarded as a “dead end” within the philosophy of science. Interesting, but ultimately a flawed way to evaluate the validity of scientific theories.

      No “single” fact or event can falsify a scientific theory.

      When J. B. Haldene said when asked what would “falsify” the theory of evolution, he said “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian”:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit

      It is silly to think of “single events” or facts that could falsify a theory.

      Instead, it is better to think in terms of Bayesian probabilities.

      Climate change is supported by the work of 1000s of studies in fields as diverse as climatology, physics, biology and ecology. It forms a interlocking network of facts.

      So, even if one temperature record is shown to be in error, the evidence from multiple fields supports the theory the planet is warming, and that human activities are contributing to that warming (while acknowledging natural processes as well).

      So, on the balance of probability the consensus on AGW is the best explanation given the facts we have.

      This is the greatest mistake “sceptics” of climate change mistake, thinking anomalies cancel out an entire discipline. It shows a complete failure to grasp the philosophy of science. Most are unreformed “Popparians”. It’s like they haven’t read anything about science since the 1950s.

      What you display Elsa is a naive understanding of science, it’s theory, it’s application and it’s results.

      Sadly, I don’t think you will ever “get it”.

      So while you are banging on about “what single fact will falsify climate change”, you engaged in what is a dead argument about the nature of science that ended in the 1970s.

      The world has moved on.

      • elsa says:

        I think underneath all of this is an acknowledegement on your part that warmist theory cannot pass the Popper test and would be interested for your views on this. You seems to say it cannot pass the test but that does not matter because the Popper test is not the right one.
        His test is not about whether or not a theory is “valid” as you put it, but whether or not it is scientific. It may be true that there is a god but as the proposition is untestable it is not a scientific theory. You mention the theory of evolution. This is a theory that could be falsified, as could the vaccinations that Moth is forever on about so that both of them are scientific. But the CO2 driven global warming theory cannot be falsified because it is consistent both with cooling and warming as Moth has demonstrated.
        You then seem to misunderstand me about whether or not the world has warmed. I have never suggested that the world has not warmed but I am at a loss to understand how you claim to know that CO2 and/or mankind is responsible. Indeed Moth’s graph with its steady rise in CO2 but very unsteady change in temperature would lead one to think that you need a very special way indeed of looking at things to make the connection.
        You then seem to introduce the new scientific method that is so popular with warmists. This seems to be that a consensus among a group of like minded people constitutes the best explanation we have and is somehow therefore right. But as I have said to Moth that it like saying in the 14th century that because the consensus is that the plague is caused by bad humours we should take it as so because we do not have a better explanation.
        What is really required is a frank admission that we do not have the knowledge that the warmist lobby claims to have.

      • Cheers Mike,

        not only does this pathetic character boost herself via various pseudonyms and continue to perpetuate an illogical hypothesis (eg. AGW could fall down if any number of principles of physical chemistry or observational data contradicted the theory – and no Elsa, the relative stability of of the mid century does not count as I’ve clearly pointed out for you on a number of occasions) but I’m confident she’s also a compulsive liar (ie. her training) and gutless (for attempting to “debunk” me elsewhere).

        Move on Elsa – you’re full of it and irrational. I’ve had enough of your nonsense and you will not win an argument against me by carrying it out behind my back.

  192. J Bowers says:

    British Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington goes on the offensive against pseudo-science, calling for it to be tolerated as much as racism is.

    http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1032320

    Dellingpole’s upset, so Beddington must be doing something right. It’s a fantastic read.

  193. john byatt says:

    well said George

    “”To dismiss an entire canon of science on the basis of either no evidence or evidence that has already been debunked is to evoke an astonishing level of self-belief. It suggests that, by instinct or by birth, you know more about this subject than the thousands of climatologists who have spent their lives working on it. Once you have taken that leap of self-belief, once you have arrogated to yourself the authority otherwise vested in science, any faith is then possible. Your own views and those of the small coterie who share them become your sole reference points, and are therefore un-challengeable and immutable. You must believe yourself capable of anything. And, in a sense, you probably are” George Monbiot….

  194. Sorry about that fourth paragraph. Let me try that one again:
    ~ ~ ~
    Why do you believe a few odd studies, that have been shown to be full of holes ~ should outweigh hundreds, if not thousands, of establishment studies?
    Do you really believe all genuine climatologists are either frauds or sheeple?

    • rogerthesurf says:

      Citizenschallenge,

      I am at a disadvantage here as the owner of this blog will not publish all my comments. Therefore it is difficult to answer you in full.

      However the studies I mention are in the thousands, I just gave a sample of a few. It appears to me that the IPCC cherry picks its papers, as withtheir resources, all papers should considered with proper scientific explanations as to why some should be used above others.

      “Are you claiming there is no scientifically proven connection between atmospheric CO2 and a warm planet?”

      Absolutely. There is no scientifically proven connection, if there was I would be silent. I suggest you read carefully the second part of my comment (20:57:05)

      I am not the only person to point this out. If you can come up with some evidence for AGW that is better than a few correlations, please let me know.

      In the meantime please suggest to the owner of this blog that my currently blocked comment be published.

      Cheers

      Roger

      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  195. Actually your “comment above” was a lot of hand waving and links that seem as though they came from “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” at sustainable.oregon.

    But, that doesn’t answer my basic curiosity about your position RTS. Although I want to rephrase my question:

    Why are you claiming that the considered assertions of true full time experts should carry less weight than part-timers?

    Why do you believe a few odd studies, that have been shown to be full of holes? In your mind, why does that outweigh hundreds, if not thousands, of establishment studies?

    Why do you believe questionable quibbling about formula details should outweigh the concrete evidence of our planet’s ultimate thermometer, its cryosphere? Specially when that evidence fits hand in glove with the consensus understanding of what is happening within our atmosphere along with countless other threads of evidence?

    Are you claiming there is no scientifically proven connection between atmospheric CO2 and a warm planet?

    Why do you believe you are making sense?

  196. john byatt says:

    I did not know that apart from a few 2nd year physics students that anyone had even bothered to debunk miskolczi, looks like a couple of blokes had an hour to spare
    it was Rob van Dorland and Piers M Forster who bothered to write and publish a rebuttal of Miskolczi (2010). “Rebuttal of Miskolczi’s alternative greenhouse theory”.

    van Dorland & Forster conclude: “The alternative greenhouse theory of Miskolczi (2007,2010) results in a constant infrared optical depth with time, meaning that there can be no increasing greenhouse effect with time. Miskolczi suggests that observations show this ratio to be fixed.

    “However, both observations and calculations with physically sound radiative transfer models show that Miskolczi’s theory does not stand up to scrutiny.

    “Moreover, there is ample observational evidence that the most important greenhouse gases, water vapour and carbon dioxide have increased in the last four decades, meaning that the total infrared optical depth is indeed increasing.

    “Finally, direct satellite observations of the outgoing infrared spectrum show that the greenhouse effect has been enhanced over this period. Even the calculations of Miskolczi show a change of optical depth with time.

    “Therefore, neither observations nor radiative transfer theory can support Miskolczi’s conclusions.”

    and another one bites the dust

  197. rogerthesurf,
    I’m sort of new here so I’m not sure what you are arguing.
    Are you claiming there is no scientifically proven connection between atmospheric CO2 and a warm planet?

    Would you care to offer an explanation?

  198. rogerthesurf says:

    A reply for John has gone to moderation. Will the owner of this blog have the guts to publish?

  199. rogerthesurf says:

    John,
    I asked you some specific questions,
    The answer(s) are not at the link you mention which once again relies on some correlations as “evidence”.
    You claim, at least I think you do, that there is a paper or papers that have demonstrated empirically somehow the causal link between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and global warming.
    Let me see it/them please!
    In the meantime, amongs all the disconnected statements that you have made, you forgot one of the most important issues; Water vapour feedback.
    Maybe you need to read this paper.

    An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
    (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
    – Sherwood B. Idso
    or this one
    – Harry N.A. Priem

    CO2 and climate: Where is the water vapor feedback?
    (Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 31, Number 4, pp. 325-329, October 1982)
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/dr-roy-spencer-open-to-possibility.html is useful to find somed truth.

    Also John, at the risk of being accused of another ad hominem attack, you are coming across as a 14 or 15 yr old. No true thinking adult would even consider to publish wild statements like yours without at least some excellent scientific references.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  200. john byatt says:

    The reason that they should believe me and not you has already been presented., you just do not want to know about it, again

    john byatt (20:21:15) :
    roger , My name is john and i’m here to help,

    read and absorb, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    come on stop the ad-hom only only 10 year olds do that

    Reply

  201. rogerthesurf says:

    John,

    I’m still waiting for the peer reviewed, published scientific paper(s) that prove the causation we have been talking about. I mean you wouldn’t believe me if I made an unsupported statement of any sort so why should any of the readers believe you?

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  202. john byatt says:

    lucky your not french

    In some other legal systems, the null hypothesis is that the defendant is guilty.

  203. john byatt says:

    You lot are so far behind, i will bring you up to date and this is from Gavin at real climate

    the only uncertainties left in the theory and then only 10% all up
    relate to
    global temperature record
    internal variability
    and feedbacks
    there is no longer any question about whether the globe is warming, whether it is caused by GHG or whether the GHG is due to fossil fuel, you can kick and scream ,jump up and down , we just don’t care,

    oh by the way google Nature news extreme rainfall linked to climate change,,

    step aside we are coming through

  204. rogerthesurf says:

    Great!
    You have a peer reviewed published scientific paper that shows and proves causation then?
    Please give me the link I wish to read it!
    Cheers

    Roger

  205. john byatt says:

    You need seventeen separate theories to explain the correct predictions from the models, i need one ,

    Model predictions realised
    That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
    They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    The expansion of the Hadley cells.

    The poleward movement of storm tracks.
    The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
    The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
    The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
    That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

    Evidence that confirms the one and only one theory enhancement of Greenhouse
    The link to fossil fuel use is printed above,

    must be sad sitting over at you blog with no one giving a fig about it ?

  206. rogerthesurf says:

    John,

    I think you had better start reading those papers I referenced to you. If you want more on a particular subject, just let me know.

    Cheers

    Roger

  207. john byatt says:

    roger , Causation?

    Here’s the evidence that links man made CO2 to increases in atmospheric CO2: Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to ~390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH.

    Here’s the evidence that links changes in atmospheric CO2 to climate change: Earth’s surface is warmed by absorbtion of short wave sunlight. White surfaces, such as ice caps, stay cold by reflecting this sunlight.

    The rest of the Earth’s surface cools by evaporation of excited water molecules, heat transfer to deeper sea and to polar ice caps and by convection and radiation back into and through the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, where the atmosphere gets less dense, the proportion of energy (heat) transfer by long wave ‘thermal’ (microwave) radiation increases.

    Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC’s, and ozone (O3) that absorb some longwave wavelengths. When they re-emit this radiation, equal amounts of it are directed back down toward the surface, rather than up away from the surface.

    Increasing intensity of downwelling longwave radiation is detected at surface observatories, matching deficits in satellite observation of radiation escaping to space at exactly the same wavelengths. This discrepancy increases with atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Thus is heat retained at the surface. ~85% of retained heat warms oceans, accelerating ice melting (sea level rise) and water evaporation (increasing rain, storms and cyclones).

    Deforestation limits biosequestration of atmospheric CO2 so that reversion to glacial conditions is not presently possible, even when earth’s orbital precession minimises intensity of sunlight on Arctic terrestrial icecaps (ie right now).

  208. A picture is worth a thousand words – check it out. {If AGW were a hoax none of that would be happening.}

    “10 key climate indicators all point to the same finding: global warming is unmistakable”
    Posted on 29 July 2010 by John Cook

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-key-climate-indicators-point-to-same-finding-global-warming-is-unmistakable.html

  209. john byatt says:

    well not all but most are they are all examples off the reliability of the models

  210. john byatt says:

    So this is going to be ” i will throw sticks and your chase them”

    Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let’s review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

    That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
    They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    The expansion of the Hadley cells.

    The poleward movement of storm tracks.
    The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
    The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
    The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
    That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

    where is your null hypothesis that predicted these seventeen straight wins for Green house warming , these are all signatures of greenhouse warming

  211. Regarding the snipping. Yes forty years ago scientists actually knew a fair amount about the atmosphere and CO2 and its implication for future global warming.

    Take the time to click on the first hot link “ greenhouse gases” you’ll find an informative history less there – A Scientific American article dating to July of 1959 “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” by Gilbert Plass.

    In the years since climatologists have continued gathering evidence supporting the consensus understanding.

    The lie that deniers like perpetrating is that somehow the scientists have created some freak consensus – when the actual truth is that the consensus is driven by the evidence.

    FYI. All the proof in the world makes no difference to folks who willfully ignore it.

  212. john byatt says:

    “I am unable to answer the assertions on your site here because the owner of this blog will simply spam my comment as he has done in the past when the facts get too uncomfortable for him.”

    Give it a go, just remain robust but no mention of hoaxes frauds, what science paper do you have that you consider might falsify AGW, If you cannot falsify the theory then you have nothing, please don’t tell me that the theory is such that it cannot be falsified , the failure of seventeen of the modelling predictions that have proven correct would have falsified it

    what is your alternate theory?
    what are your predictions?
    how could i falsify that theory for you ?

    • rogerthesurf says:

      OK

      Scientific peer reviewed published papers that contradict findings used by the IPCC. A sample out of thousands.

      Here is a list of a few out of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers who contradict every piece of evidence the IPCC has. Why didnt the IPCC use these?

      An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
      – Richard S. Courtney

      An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
      (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
      – Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

      Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
      (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
      – David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

      A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
      (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
      – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

      – Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
      (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
      – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

      A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
      – Roy Clark

      A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
      – William Kininmonth

      A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
      (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
      – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

      A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
      (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
      – Robert C. Balling Jr.

      A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
      – Craig Loehle

      An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
      (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
      – Sherwood B. Idso

      An upper limit to global surface air temperature
      (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
      – Sherwood B. Idso

      AGW theory is not scientifically proven.
      There are three ways that one can prove a hypothesis scientifically.

      In the case of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” this is what therefore is needed.

      1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming?

      2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2? In case you dont know it, correlations are never proof.

      3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

      Now you may need a little reading to understand what these things are. Here is a site which describes what is needed for #3 which might help. http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html

      Now you should do some research to see if any one of these things have been done.

      Models that you mention use AGW as part of their assumptions. Models are never proof. Just useful tools in some situations.

      For disproving factors try checking out my blog. Take a browse over the links on the right of the page as well.

      What you may not be aware of is the terrible cost of complying with the IPCC CO2 emission reductions. Can give you some thoughts on that as well if you are interested.

      Cheers

      Roger
      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • rogerthesurf says:

      Answer has been sent to moderation and will probably be spammed.

  213. rogerthesurf says:

    NP we are watching the alarmists.

    Also waiting for someone to publish some scientific proof of AGW.

    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Were you really around 40 years ago? By the general lack of cohesion and understanding you display, I seriously thought you must be between 12 and 16 yrs old.

    • AlphaOmega says:

      “waiting for someone to publish some scientific proof of AGW”
      Given this answer and that I learned the basics at high school (I am below the thirties), and that there is now mountains of evidence, I’d say you ought to be less than 10 yrs old.
      Unless you are several centuries old and still leave in the Dark Ages, refusing any piece of science and even throwing up at the sound of “rational thinking”.

    • john byatt says:

      roger , My name is john and i’m here to help,

      read and absorb, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

      come on stop the ad-hom only only 10 year olds do that

      • rogerthesurf says:

        John,

        I did not intend my comment to be construed as an ad hominem attack, however what I said is a reasonable description of my impressions of the author of this blog.

        I am unable to answer the assertions on your site here because the owner of this blog will simply spam my comment as he has done in the past when the facts get too uncomfortable for him.

        However you are welcome to discuss it at my site.

        Cheers

        Roger

        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  214. fredorth says:

    Unfortunitely, Senator Inhofe is well within the realm of “God won’t allow this” mentality.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: