Robust conversation part one: Climate Sceptics Party v Watching the Deniers

Geoff Brown from The Climate Sceptics Party has some interesting things to say about my blog:

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. See here…

The Watcher goes on to dispute our connecting the severity of the Victorian fires to the Greens.

First of all, welcome Geoff! 

I have no intention of censoring what you have to say.

That the Climate Sceptics Party exists is a good thing for democracy: this is the debate we have to have.

The science is settled: it is our society that needs to thrash this issue out in public. And yes, the debate is robust because it has to be.

I’m extremely busy at work, and will respond to the post on this blog shortly. 

The debate we must have

However, I think people should have the opportunity to discuss the issue. A few ground rules for everyone:

  • Keep it civil
  • Don’t resort to ad hominem/personal attacks
  • Respect the other, even if they have widely differing views to yours
  • Foul language or personal abuse will not be tolerated.

I will apply the same rules to “warmist” and “denier” alike. Breach of these rules results in a temporary ban. A “one warning” rule will apply, and I’ll monitor things carefully.

I’ve always believed in freedom of expression, and the right of any one to express their view. We’re all adults here; let’s not fall into the trap of demonizing those with opposing views.

Some background on me

I’m not a:

  • Greenie
  • Socialist
  • Member of the Labor Party
  • Scientist
  • Agent for the NWO

I am centrist in my political views, comfortable with market based economies (regulated) and believe democratic forms of government allow the flourishing of individuals and societies.

About this fire thing…

I’m favour of controlled burn offs to reduce fuel loads. I agree, more could have been down to reduce the fuel load. I spent a little bit of time in the CFA. I never saw any major action, however I understand the need for proper fire management techniques.

We probably have far more in common that either side of the “debate” realise.

Mike

About these ads

64 thoughts on “Robust conversation part one: Climate Sceptics Party v Watching the Deniers

  1. john byatt says:

    Mad Bob Carters list of sites where the public can get scientific information to help them write letters against the Carbon Tax

    COMMUNICATIONS LINKS
    There are a number of established Australian web-based communication and information sites in place, through which the rapid dissemination and public promulgation of information about global warming and related scientific and political issues is already achieved. They include:
    The Australian Conservative conmen (John Styles) – http://australianconservative.com/
    The Australian Climate kleptics (Leon Ashby) – http://noshape.org/news/
    The Carbon no Sense Coalition (Viv Forbes) – http://carbonnosense.com/
    JoNova (Joanne Nova) – http:// CRAZYjoannenova.com.au/
    Jennifer Marohasy (Jennifer Marohasy) -http://have one on mejennifermarohasy.com/blog/
    Lavoisier Group (Ray Evans) – http://www.lavoisier dimwits.com.au/index.php
    IPA (Chris Berg) – http://climatechange.ipa.org.au/
    AEF (Max Rheese) – http://eieioweb.info/
    Aus Climate anti Science Coalition (Max Rheese) – http://www.ausacsc.org.au/

  2. john byatt says:

    Cohenite (anthony cox } displaying his vast knowledge with roy spencer smack down,
    COHENITE
    If I understand Christopher correctly, Aa=Ed is not a BOA surface to immediate atmospheric level description but a whole atmospheric to BOA surface equlibrium; in fact this is what Miskolczi said in his first paper:

    (c) — The atmosphere is in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE). In case of
    the Earth this is true up to about 60 km altitude [page 3]

    In his summary of Miskolczi’s first paper Rob van Dorland confirmed Miskolczi’s Figure 2 of the 1st [2007] paper and figure 3 of the second [2010] paper; as Miskolczi says “the source density of Ed and the destination density of Aa match precisely at EACH ALTITUDE [my bold]“. So there is a temperature profile where Ed = Su.[1-Ta] at all places/heights; this answers BPL’s complaint: ‘And, of course, if that were true all through the atmosphere, there would be no greenhouse effect–and no lapse rate” because Miskolczi is not talking about a Zeroth law situation; in fact the opposite; and because it is the opposite the greenhouse effect is extant and at maximum, as indicated by the OD constancy.

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
    August 10, 2010 at 3:40 AM
    The “pure radiative equilibrium” case was worked out an published in the 1960s by Manabe and Strickler, and the current atmosphere is nowhere near that.
    I think people throw around “local thermodynamic equilibrium” without even knowing what it means. I do not think the concept has anything to do with our discussion.

  3. john byatt says:

    RC Wiki on miskolczi with links to 2010 paper that Gavin correctly describes as Dreck

    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi

  4. john byatt says:

    Anthony, on the ABC you profile yourself as a climatologist,

    “degrees in climatology”

    please clarify

  5. john byatt says:

    Deltoid 2009,

    “Any of you genuises care to definitively state that SOI/ENSO has no effect on trend at all.
    Posted by: cohenite” (anthony)

    As sod says: prove to us that ENSO introduce new energy into the system that wasn’t there before.
    If you can’t, it’s not a climate trend. It’s a modifier of climate.
    Rather like walking up steps: each step goes up and along. But the along bit isn’t the trend. The trend is upward. The bit that goes up isn’t the trend. The trend is forward. If this were not so, the steps would not be “steps” but “a path” or “a ladder”.
    So where is the force on the climate that produces a trend from ENSO?
    If there isn’t one, then ENSO has no effect on the climate TREND.
    But, maybe you’re not a doofus as you appear but secretly a genius and answering that will be easy for you.

  6. john byatt says:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat

    more to say about Geoff the dog trainer blogger and his disinformation campaign
    re miskolczi iN E&E

  7. ianash says:

    Oops another finger fumble…2+2=5!

  8. ianash says:

    Oh, I just looked at their website. They think I’m someone named Brisbane (I’m not) because I misspelt Carter’s name. 2=2=5!

    Come back Geoff, surely you can take a little hurly burly.

    I’m sure your friends will be able to post, just as long as they dont call the host a paedophile.

  9. ianash says:

    It’s sad when people with such strong views give up so easily.

  10. john byatt says:

    Oh by the way geoff you ended up here cause i played with ya brain, naughty me

  11. john byatt says:

    No he has decided to spend his time with Ridley on his own blog, at least it will now get a few comments,,

    ” Geoff, “i will never post on that site again”

  12. ianash says:

    Where is Geoff?

    I thought we were going to have a civil discussion?

  13. john byatt says:

    given that we have been answering geoffs claims re Carter, it is about time he addressed at least one question himself

    1ST question to Geoff,

    what is the forcing that is continuing to bring us out of the little ice age ?

    .

  14. john byatt says:

    Sou, they use such as to then claim that no one will debate them,

    Bob Carter
    Two years ago, he had a paper called “Knock knock: where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming?” published in Economic Analysis and Policy, the official journal of the Queensland branch of the Economic Society of Australia.

    Carter’s paper contains a stunning array of errors, the most serious of which I itemised in an analysis for the same journal. Some of the inaccuracies are laughable. For instance, Carter cites a palaeotemperature reconstruction as evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the late 20th century, even though it only provides temperature data up to 1935. Elsewhere he suggests wrongly that atmospheric carbon dioxide only produces a small warming effect, basing his assertion solely on erroneous calculations posted on a website about “Plant Fossils of West Virginia”. And he attributes the warming in the late 20th century to solar activity, but refers to a paper that used inaccurate data about sunspot activity, and which when corrected show no correlation with the recent global average temperature record.

    Economic society says it all

    However he does contradict himself even by saying that CO2 leads to a small warming thus confirming that it is a greenhouse gas, he needs a paper along with the hundreds if not thousands of papers over the last century that makes a clear case for temp increase from enhanced greenhouse effect, 3DegC +- 1.5DegC , where is it Carter ?

    Lindzen also contradicts geoffs ascertain that the CO2 theory is falsified,

    again a recent paper gives evidence that the temp increase CO2/methane feedback from permafrost melting may start from 2025, this would require even higher levels of GHG reductions, Once established would change the climate for millenium

    ,

  15. Sou says:

    The rest of the rubbish is equally not worth responding to except to say the tactics of the ‘climate sceptics’ party are not new – sow doubt and encourage ignorance. If the party had any nouse it would come straight out and call itself the ‘Climate Change Denier’ party and be done with it.

    I will say that the public should be ‘scared’. Unless we reduce CO2 emissions and take other action to reduce the rate of warming, the future will be bleak. (If anyone thought the fires of the past decade were bad, wait till the next drought when it’s even hotter.)

    In case anyone is confused, IMO there is no opportunity for ‘robust debate’ about the underlying science. If there was to be robust debate, it would be in the policy and strategy area eg on the topic of how to best reduce CO2 emissions.

  16. Sou says:

    We’ve seen a few people blame the ‘greens’ for setting bushfires (is that the Greens Party or does that cover the 99% of humanity that has an inkling that human survival is inextricably linked with the continued existence of other living things? It can’t be the Greens Party, because that hasn’t made any government decisions at all, let alone any that could impact on bushfires.

    It can’t be normal people because there has, for decades, been prescribed burning carried out all over the country. Unless the Climate Sceptics party is referring to the fact that we have created conditions for more and worse bushfires by not reducing CO2 emissions.

    I’m waiting for someone to blame the ‘greens’ for earthquakes. I’ve already seen one person question global warming on the basis that it hasn’t warmed since 2010. Seriously!!!

    Fuel reduction burns might be of some help in a general sense. I hope so, because it’s tough putting up with the heavy smoke and risk of fire escaping, when they are carried out all over the state each year. I doubt much more could have been done last decade – the drought didn’t allow it. You can’t do prescribed burns when it’s hot, dry and windy. People would complain when the fire got out of control. Fires don’t burn too well when it’s raining heavily. So the number of days when prescribed burns are possible is quite limited – in our region to a few days in autumn and sometimes a couple of days in early September.

    Nothing could have been done to prevent the fires getting away on Black Saturday. We’re fortunate the damage wasn’t greater.

    Of course, there will always be those who want to concrete the whole of Australia and I agree that would probably put a stop to wildfires.

  17. john byatt says:

    Carters test three does not falsify anything , even if was correct would only show
    a lesser value for doubling of CO2 which is not falsification, however carter is clearly mistaken moving on to No4

    Carter Number 4

    TEST 4: Does CO2 lead or lag temperature change?

    No, the change in temperature precedes by between a few hundred and a thousand or so years the change in Carbon Dioxide. This is a simple cause and effect. The hypothesis says that it is the other way around.

    this is pure drivel CO2 is a known and measured forcing of Atmospheric temperature,

    The hypothesis accepts that temp rise can lead to increased levels of CO2
    and also the CO2 rise can lead to increased temperature, carters claim is again absurd , but have a go if you like

  18. john byatt says:

    in 24 hours Geoff has gone from its not warming to its not dangerous warming (Carter) to its not runaway warming,

    If you actually knew what runaway warming meant you would know that the earth is not in a range from the sun that would allow that,

    however the question of future warming that becomes beyond our power to address by reductions in emissions is a real threat,

    if runaway global warming ever occurred humans would have been long gone
    due to earlier temperature rise, there would be no one left to document it

    the question is moot

  19. john byatt says:

    In case the point was missed ” grapes are not used as a proxy for temperature “

    • Nick says:

      Absolutely. In the case of pre-Roman and Roman Britain,grapes are a cultural proxy. Pre-Roman Britons did not drink wine made from Vitis vinifera,if they drank wine at all.

  20. john byatt says:

    Grapes grow from Alaska to Hawaii, warmth during the MWP in parts of the NH are irrelevant to the question of AGW Atmospheric CO2 forcing on a global scale

  21. J Bowers says:

    “10. The geography and inhabitants of Britain, already described by many writers, I will speak of, not that my research and ability may be compared with theirs, but because the country was then for the first time thoroughly subdued. And so matters, which as being still not accurately known my predecessors embellished with their eloquence, shall now be related on the evidence of facts.
    [...]
    With the exception of the olive and vine, and plants which usually grow in warmer climates, the soil will yield, and even abundantly, all ordinary produce.“

    — Tacitus: Agricola Book 1 [10]

  22. john byatt says:

    the important thing to remember is that Carter is claiming that each of his tests falsify AGW “enhanced Greenhouse effect from human fossil fuel emissions and deforestation ‘ that is the claim

  23. john byatt says:

    Bob Carters next test

    TEST 2a): Is today’s global warming outside the historical natural variation?

    Our second test then is whether modern temperature is in any way unusual warm or increasing at an unusually high rate – Again the answer is NO.

    TEST 2b) Is today’s global temperature unnaturally high last 2000 – 5000 years:

    Looking at the Egyptian Warm period, The Minoan Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period, The Medieval Warm Period and the late 20th century Warm Period. Nothing unusual in the Late 20th Century warm period.

    Again the answer is NO. There is no evidence that the late 20th century warming is in any way unusual either in the magnitude of the peak or in the rate of warming.

    ,

  24. Geoff Brown says:

    Does Phil Jones of the Climategate Cabal CRU understand a trend?

    “In the interview Jones stated that although there has been a modest warming trend since 1995, it is not statistically significant. Further, there is no statistically significant difference among the four warming trends of 1860-1880, 1910-40, 1975-1995, and 1975-2009. Thus, one can not use the global surface temperature record to statistically establish that the recent warming was different from past warming periods.”

    • john byatt says:

      Geoff when Phil stated that the warming was not statistically significant he was 100% correct , it would have to have warmed a lot more in less than 15 years from 1995 at the time, it is now the full 15 years and if you ask phil
      in 2011 if the warming since 1995 is statistically significant the answer
      would be yes , you can google and confirm
      it is all about the trend geoff and confidence levels

      “The global warming trend averaged to the year 2000 was .6DegC per century, since 1970 the rate of warming has increased to a trend of 1.3DegC per century, this shows acceleration ,

      Geoff”Further, there is no statistically significant difference among the four warming trends of 1860-1880, 1910-40, 1975-1995, and 1975-2009″

      you have just argued for continued warming since 1880

      the warming to date since 1880 is .82DegC , this is a very significant warming

      Bob Carter has changed from No warming to No dangerous warming,
      since 1995, on it own, that period alone, he is correct, added onto the prior warming though he is wrong,

      two papers in Nature last week have looked at attribution from climate change to a flood in England and NH rainfall and both find attribution in part from Global warming, there will be many more papers coming out this year but mostly for the NH as we do not yet have the full data required for the SH,

    • ianash says:

      Geoff,

      Could you have a look at the current temperature data and report back on what you see? That would be useful to the debate.

  25. Roy says:

    Jesus guys, since when is Carter the decider of when global warming is happening or not?

    Geoff Brown is clearly just using Carter’s bunk tests to protect himself from actually discussing the science.

    Geoff, do you believe that Co2 can affect the climate at all?

  26. john byatt says:

    Geoff, its not about year to year records, its all about trends

    Last year 2010 the NASA GISS surface temperature anomaly at .62DegC above the 20th century average or .82DEgC above the 1880 base,tied with the record high set in 2005. As laymen or Bob Carter we read that incorrectly as showing that globally the temperature has not risen in the past five years, everyday is the end of and the beginning of a new 12 month period , by using an arbitrary start date of Jan 1 and end date of 31 Dec we do not fully appreciate what has taken place during the year.
    Looking at the temperature graph we find that record highs were set for a large part of 2010, the first six months was the warmest ever recorded for that period, the final six months of last year dominated by La Nina has not cooled the globe, it has only moved the heat resulting in a the average surface temperature for the year equal to 2005.
    It is the decadal and multi decadal trend that is significant , The global warming trend averaged to the year 2000 was .6DegC per century, since 1970 the rate of warming has increased to a trend of 1.3DegC per century, There about six independent temperature gathering agencies, none of them cover the globe entirely, the differences in record high years for each are only due to those parts of the globe that each cover and their base line year, their trends however are in full agreement .So what then has been the warmest twelve month period on record?, Dec 2009-Nov2010 wears the gong

    Carter does not understand a trend

  27. ianash says:

    Geoff, I’m still waiting for answers to my questions.

  28. john byatt says:

    Geoff, here is your first test that the theory has been falsified,

    do you stand by this?

    TEST 1) Has global temperature warmed over the last few years?

    Using the data from the CRU – Hadley centre in Britain – the temperature data that the IPCC uses – the fact is that since 1998 and 2005 there is no trend up or down.
    9 years no increase in Global Temperature at the same time a 4% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide

    TEST No 1 Fails.

    2) Satellite data – Southern Hemisphere same as it was 28 years ago. The Northern Hemisphere a very slight warming – averaged globally – an even slighter warming so over 25 yrs or so, it has only warmed a very small amount overall. So, is dangerous warming occurring – NO.

    • ianash says:

      Both these points have been shown to be incorrect (or perhaps more generously, misleading). Bob Cater has been tackled on them numerous times.

      Test 1: Look at all the temperature data, not just one sub-set of the data. It is all readily available. It shows the continuing warming trend.

      Test2: Also incorrect. Carl Mears and Frank Wentz from RSS did an independent analysis of the satellite data. In the process, they found an algebraic error in the UAH analysis. RSS released their own results based on their data analysis – a trend of 0.19°C per decade.

      Please, there must be more to the debate than points as easily refutable as these.

  29. elsa says:

    “The science is settled: it is our society that needs to thrash this issue out in public. And yes, the debate is robust because it has to be.”

    I am not sure what you mean when you say this. Are you saying that:
    1. we know the world is a bit warmer or
    2. we know that the world is warmer and we know that man is responsible for it in some way?
    If 2. I am not sure that even the warmist scientists agree with you, although they would go out of their way to make statements that sound like they support that proposition. For example the IPCC will agree with statements that use 90% confidence intervals (as opposed to the normal 95%) which sound very secure to the uninformed but which ought really to be given as a demonstration of their lack of certainty.

    • john byatt says:

      There is an a thread at real climate that explain what parts of the evidence is in and what parts of the theory remain unsettled, this is stuff that you should seek out for yourself,

      Internal variability is not settled
      feedbacks are not settled
      exact rise in temperature since 1880 is not settled but is well established since the 1970’s no we are only talking hundredths of degrees not more than that so it is hardly worth pursuing currently .82DegC above 1880

      • Geoff Brown says:

        John,
        All you need to do is show the science that shows man-made CO2 is causing runaway global warming. Or of course, show where ALL of Professor Carter’s six falsification tests (that you linked above) are wrong. Remember, Falsification only needs ONE test.

      • elsa says:

        I was really enquiring of the likes of you what you thought was unsettled. If you accept that e.g. feedbacks are not settled then I am a bit mystified about how you know that it is e.g. CO2 that is making the world warmer.

    • AlphaOmega says:

      Sure, you have cancer with 90% probability of dying, so you don’t do anything about it because you are not in the 95% interval you want.
      Anyway, who says you should be in the 95%??? Any risk analyst would tell you 90% is more than enough to take dramatic measures in order to prevent damage from happening.
      BTW, I doubt that any of the skeptics can claim even to be in the lowest 10% confidence interval…

      • elsa says:

        I don’t think there is a claim that there is a 90% probability that the theory is right. That is not what confidence intervals are about. Although I agree that the way the claim is often presented gives that (misleading) impression.

  30. john byatt says:

    When geoff brown states that the theory has been falsified he is referring to this Test of the theory claimed by Bob Carter,

    Warning, place head in vice before viewing

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/01/hypothesis-was-falsified-years-ago-why.html

    • Geoff Brown says:

      Alarmists should take your advice, John. Unless, of course they can show an error in Professor Carter’s six tests that falsify the hypothesis.

      • ianash says:

        Will do.

      • Nick says:

        Carter’s test’s are nonsenses,Geoff.

        Test 1 is a nonsense because interannual variability exceeds the CO2 signal,as it would any signal trend induced by any long term forcing. A nine year period is too short-a simple cherry pick.

        Test 2 is a nonsense because anthropogenic warming has just begun [simple physics],it is already noted to be quite rapid in geological terms,and a modern sedentary civilisation of seven billion souls would not have found the transition of the Younger Dryas very survivable,no? Especially if had already massively depleted its ocean resources,massively depleted its fossil fuels,and severely compromised its agricultural potential by exhausting soils and water resources.

        Test 2b involves cherry picking GISP data.Fail. Modern warming is significant,as the cryosphere shows.

        Test 3 Correlation between CO2 rise and temeprature rise over the last 150 years is q1uite clear…except to Bob,it appears,who’d demands it be seen at an annual resolution. This is a nonsense.

        Test 4 is a logical nonsense.There is no physical reason why a large burst of fossil fuel CO2 cannot induce a temperature rise simple because CO2 rise lagged Milankovic induced temperature change.

        Test 5 is a nonsense because no one has ever argued that the equatorial tropospheric hot spot is an exclusive sign of anthropogenic influence. The real signs are the ones Bob ignores like stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming,definitely not what would be seen if solar output was increasing.

        ‘Bonus’ Test 6 is more facetious nonsense. Let Carter show that CO2 ‘domes’ over cities are in any way uninfluenced by winds,and ask him about UHI and how this may confound observation.The ACO2 hypothesis is about changes in the greater atmosphere to TOA.

        I found it difficult to believe Carter would even attempt to raise this fatuous,much explained bunch of non-tests.

  31. leon ashby says:

    The climate sceptics party has always recognised the various warming and cooling periods in the earths history. We don`t deny climate changes. We are not sceptical of the climate. We called ourselves climate sceptics as the media had branded those against the Al Gore / alarmist view as climate sceptics , so we went with it. Climate realists might be a better term.

    As to what causes any particular warming and how much – there is a range of evidence for various causes. Do we adhere to one particular view – Yes – The Science is never settled. New evidence can change our perspective. could we ever say CO2 causes all the Global warming – No
    Could we say it causes some – Yes if there is good evidence.
    Is there evidence of substantial warming (5 degrees C by 2100) from CO2 – Not at this point .
    Do we back any narrow view of the data – No we are prepared to be sceptical of any one bit of research, but if there is a weight of evidence, we then become stronger in our position.

    In our view there is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures over centuries. There is no correlation across centuries between CO2 and ice cover, sea levels, numbers of cyclones, floods, or anything else.

    Sorry to change the subject, but that is what we are happy to chat about
    Cheers
    Leon Ashby
    President The Climate Sceptics

    • Nick says:

      Sorry,Leon,but in your view there IS a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Any time you raise the “CO2 rise lags temperature rise” chestnut,you are flagging a correlation. This correlation is apparently the only one acceptable to your argument.

  32. john byatt says:

    Must look up the word civility

    “Reply by Geoff Brown on January 22, 2011 at 2:32pm
    You are a clown, Ross. Again you dodged answering. Anyone can present Bullsnot in a Hall. Any-one can.”

  33. cohenite says:

    The civil MR Byatt has referred to the van Dorland and Forster effort. As if this un-peer-reviewed, inhouse effort rebuts Miskolczi. On page 2 van Dorland and Forster say:

    “As a next step using his quasi radiative equilibrium model, Miskolczi calculates the relationship between outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and the infrared flux originating from the Earths surface (Su). The relationship is a function of infrared optical depth (τA) only”

    This is wrong; on page 17 of Miskolczi’s 2nd paper, figure 10:

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

    Miskolczi measures changes in “the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness”. This is made up of two parts which are depicted in Figure 10. The first is τA which is defined as “the total IR flux optical depth” [page 5 Miskolczi 2007]. This is a measure of the total amount of infra-red or LW radiation which is absorbed between the surface and the TOA. The second is A which is the flux absorbance [page 3 Miskolczi 2010] and is a measure of what wavelengths of LW are being absorbed and transmitted in the atmosphere.

    So van Dorland and Forster can’t even get Miskolczi’s basic point right!

    The rest of van Dorland’s ‘paper’ merely restates the SH and OLR disputes from the viewpoint of AGW. In short it is a farrago and Miskolczi stands.

    • john byatt says:

      and all of Miskolczi’s claims are refuted by observation , physics and logic .
      have you now given up defending ENSO as the cause ?

  34. john byatt says:

    Had a look at Geoff brown comments, caught, john byatt was uncivil and wondered what that was all about,
    seems even the word denier which i rarely use is uncivil unless used by the sceptics of course

    it is pronounced Den E Air , Denier is a unit of measure for the linear mass density of fibers

  35. ianash says:

    Look, I’m a little confused. Some parts of the The Climate Sceptics Party blogs make a case that there is no global warming but the extract above says that there is warming.

    5th question: What does The Climate Sceptic Party believe the science is showing regarding global warming ?

  36. john byatt says:

    Cox (TCS} was at unleashed recently claiming that warming was due to TSI trying to back miskolczi,

    He had previously been at Deltoid as cohenite claiming that the warming was due to ENSO trying to back the Mc and carter paper

    do not expect consistency ,,

    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.”

    just in case anyone missed it

  37. cohenite says:

    Forcing out of LIA:

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html

    http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/uvmm-2col.pdf

    Even the IPCC accepts TSI as the primary forcing upto the latter 20thC:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-5.htm

    The 2nd-4th questions all deal with past warm periods; in respect of the MWP and the last 2000 years McShane and Wyner’s paper would seem to have definitively prioritised the statistical hierarchy of temperature over that period based on Mann’s own data: see here for published paper and various comments:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/13/mcshane-wyner-hockey-stick-smackdown-redux/#more-29354

    Temperatures during the Holocene interglacial generally are shown to have been warmer during both the Roman and Minoan warm periods:

    http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/Obrien.html

    • john byatt says:

      any correlation for TSI as the forcing for global warming ended in the 1970’s anthony as you well know , the sun is in a very quiet period , The only correlation is with atmospheric rise in GHG , CO2 coupled with deforestation and little else . this is confirmed by many model predictions that have been confirmed by observation .

  38. Don’t you love how smooth the transition was from, “global warming isn’t happening!” to “of course global warming is happening – we’ve always known it’s been warming since the little ice age!”

    Clever bunch, huh?

    I’ve like the see them explain away the entire warming trend without the assistance of greenhouse gas emissions. But of course, it’s unmeasurable qualities of the sun or cosmic radiation…. sigh…

  39. ianash says:

    4th question.

    Given your interest in the MWP, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states:

    “The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Brif a, 2006).”

    Given the IPCC explicitly acknowldges the MWP did occur, could you please provide evidence to support your assertion that:

    “Ever since then [Mann et al produced the flawed "hockey stick" graph], the charlatan IPCC scientists have been trying to justify the MWP, to eliminate the MWP in order to incorrectly show that the late twentieth warming was unusual (although Phil Jones in a BBC interview admitted it wasn’t…”

  40. Adam says:

    3rd question.
    Why is it the North West Passage was navigable by humans in a continuous voyage only recently and not requiring several seasons to do so as in the past?

  41. Nick says:

    2nd question to Geoff,why are degradable organic human artefacts and in-situ plant matter 4-5000+ old years being revealed by retreating snow and ice cover at numerous sites in Europe,North America and Greenland if the MWP was as warm or warmer than the current period?

    • elsa says:

      Does it not also beg the question of whether the world was warmer 4-5000+ years ago?

      • Nick says:

        Nobody disputes mid-Holocene warmth in the NH,Elsa. However,too many people put forward the idea that warm periods during the later Roman Empire and the Middle Ages were warmer than today. Considerable physical evidence proves otherwise.

  42. john byatt says:

    1ST question to Geoff,

    what is the forcing that is continuing to bring us out of the little ice age ?

  43. john byatt says:

    his name is geoff brown WtD ,

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: