450mm rainfall in 30 hours at Pardoo Station just near where the eye crossed to land. Claims that Port Hedland has experienced its longest continuous period of gale force winds.
“I thought the CSIRO predicted eternal drought” You may have thought they did,but in reality they did not. If you knew anything about the Pilbara,you know they get cyclones often enough,and some deliver intense localised rainfall in an otherwise arid region. So the Pilbara is not in or out of drought,it’s always feast or [more often] famine in summer there.
If all you’ve got to dine out on is David Viners ancient and outdated speculation,it’s no wonder you’re floundering.
“useless” …actually,they desalinate water and can supply 10 to 15% of their cities demands. Sure,it would be good if they were never needed. Can you tell me why we won’t need them in the future? Some insight into rainfall trends? [sarc]
“white elephants” ….given that they are only a few years into their design lives,this is a premature comment. And completely wrong in the case of Perth,and Brisbane after floodwater reduced dam water quality.
I’ll grant that some of them are over-costly and they guzzle energybut that is no criticism of their utility. The Sydney plant was built with offsetting wind-power.
Rusty does seems to be hanging around forever. A very slow moving system. Not nice.
On another note – remember when Andrew Bolt distanced himself from Malcolm Roberts because of Roberts’ unsavoury conspiracy theories? Apparently islamophobia is okay for Bolt.
This from Bolt’s blog today (found via a tweet) after Bolt decides that global warming isn’t hurting crops or food prices (he’s not one to let the FAO’s Food Price Index spoil a good yarn). He wrote in criticism of the Centre for American Progress’ efforts to develop solutions to address global warming problems:
“Personally, I think the Center for American Progress missed a fine opportunity for scaremongering. It could have argued instead that global warming helps Islamists.”
I don’t understand how Bolt is allowed to keep repeating the big lie claiming there’s been no warming for 16 years when its been debunked so thoroughly and repeatedly in column after column. I’ve written the following letter to the editor on this myself :
“In his Thursday ‘Advertiser’ column (Page 24, “Pause for warming effect” inset box 2012 October 18th) Andrew Bolt claimed that new data show a lack of warming over the past 16 years. Mr Bolt is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts – empirical observed evidence collected by NASA NOAA and the CSIRO among others flatly contradicts this false claim. For example, search the NASA website and anyone can find reference to the fact that 2010 was the hottest year on record tying with 2005 and last year was globally the hottest recorded La Nina cycle year. This year as many know but Mr Bolt apparently missed saw the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record, another key indicator of the reality of our current artificially induced planetary overheating. Bolt’s piece was factually inaccurate and highly misleading and 98% of qualified climatologists, individuals who have spent decades studying and working on understanding the facts and processes and nature of Earth’s climate are agreed that Global Overheating is real and a serious concern. I strongly believe it is overdue that we listened to those climatologists who actually know what they’re talking about on this topic not ideologically blinkered polemicists and request the Advertiser please consider this in future and ideally both issues a correction and runs a counter-piece by a reputable climatologist preferably in Mr Bolt’s place.
Best regards :”
That letter wasn’t published and Bolt has kept on repeating his lie since. You’d think he’d know or have been told better.
At least his TV show doesn’t seem to have reappeared – has it been cancelled for good despite Gina Rhineheart? Hope so.
The claim is now 17 years, I calculated the energy that the earth has trapped over the past 17 years, equivalent to energy released from 200,000,000 Hiroshima bombs,
Must be an accumulation of magic energy – its not causing the surface temperature thermometers to move, and hasn’t done so for 16 years.
And the sea surface is in on the plot – it hasn’t warmed for 13 years.
Of course the accuracy claimed for the ocean heat content estimation is more than a little implausible. The heat capacity of the ocean is so large, an entire year’s global warming, even at IPCC levels, would only be expected to shift ocean temperatures by a few hundredths of a degree.
Given the vast scale of the ocean, and comparatively small number of accurate measurement stations, claiming accuracy of several hundredths of a degree for ocean temperature measurement stretches credibility.
You are ‘more than a little implausible’,Eric. The robotic repetition of nonsense does not make it true. The sixteen years canard is laughable. OLS trend is rising in all indices for that period. And if the ocean has not been warming for over a decade,how come it’s still rising? Before you claim yet another set of observations is suspect you need to think your claims through,and not take any notice of arguments from incredulity [Eschenbach’s rubbish] by incompetents at Watts…really that is the worst site possible for impressionable folk like yourself. A commentator there has been handing Willis his pants,though none of the fools will concede. And that,in a nutshell,is what the site is about:stubborn,willing aggressive ignorance.
The real world is waiting for you when you are ready.
The heat capacity of the ocean is so large, an entire year’s global warming, even at IPCC levels, would only be expected to shift ocean temperatures by a few hundredths of a degree.
And the sea surface is in on the plot – it hasn’t warmed for 13 years.
Your logic skills are lacking aren’t they? Too much time worshipping in the church of Watts will do that to you.
Zootie, I simply pointed out two things wrong with the data:-
1. The data also shows a flatspot from 2003
2. I don’t trust the data, because I think the accuracy claimed is nonsense. Even if the measuring instruments might have an accuracy of 1/100 of a degree, it is not plausible they are measuring the temperature of the ocean to that level of accuracy.
As for using SLR as a proxy for ocean heat content, we don’t even know for sure what the SLR is exactly. Find 2 tide level gauges which agree and you’ll be doing well. And as I showed with the JPL paper I produced, satellite telemetry systems such as GRACE have a cumulative random error of 0.6c / year, which the paper itself shows as sudden unexpected accelerations in SLR.
“I don’t trust the data” The data show a continued warming trend,which is consistent with other observations- measured SLR and ship observations.
“It is not plausible” !! Eric,you do not have the competence to judge. The process does not involve ‘finding two tide gauges that agree’ No tide gauge will show the exact movement rates as any other.. SLR assessment samples a lot more data than that as you bleeding well know. And GRACE has nothing to do with the satellite work on SLR
You are a motivated rejectionist. Face it. It’s obvious.
From that study, every genius who knew that the earth orbited the sun were considered as knowing more science, It was very basic science, What it did show was that people who do not consider themselves competent at science accept that the scientists know more than they, while those who knew the basics thought that they knew more than the scientists, much like eric
You are a motivated rejectionist. Face it. It’s obvious.
Nonsense. If I thought for one minute that the alarmist case was plausible, I would be campaigning for an acceptable solution – to decarbonise the economy by converting all energy production to nuclear power.
The fact that you guys are not wholeheartedly campaigning for nuclear power to replace fossil fuel, and instead are frittering your waning political capital on nonsense solutions such as wind turbines, and campaigns to restrain consumerism, makes me worry about *your* motivations.
Because if you really cared about CO2, you would be willing to meet your opponents on middle ground – you would stop wasting time with alternative energy, at least in the short term, and wholeheartedly embrace the nuclear option, as the only possible solution which might find acceptance in time to save the planet.
So I wonder if restraining consumerism is your real motivation.
As usual you argue from your own ignorance, I write letters, we need everything we can get, even short term nuclear untlll we convert 100% to renewable, the sad thing is that conversion to total renewable is possible right now
Conversion to total renewables is nonsense. Even if you somehow found the money to build enough turbines to match the capacity of all other generation systems in existence, and automobiles, and ships, and other manmade CO2 sources, due to the intermittency, you would still have to keep CO2 emitting gas turbine generators idling, ready to stabilise the grid in anytime the wind dropped.
By comparison, a new series of nuclear reactors would emit near zero CO2, and would provide the stable reliable supply needed by modern systems.
Read the problems Germany is experiencing with grid instability, and imagine what would happen if they tried to source more than 30% of their power from wind.
The only safe, reliable, and affordable way to cut carbon emissions is nuclear energy. The sooner you guys realise this, the sooner we’ll inject some rationality into the debate.
Eric,I’ll meet on the grounds of nuclear: I was bemused when the Germans decided to fold on nuclear using the Japan earthquake as a reason. I think that is unrealistic and an overreaction,though there may be less discussed reasons around the age and replacement cost of some of their facilities.
But you ridicule renewables without thought,because you swallow the manipulations of those with vested FF interests who have prominence if not dominance in the ‘media’. Solar has made an enormous impact on energy demand from non-renewables,and we have barely scratched the potential in terms of roof area. I’d try and be a little less anxious if I were you.
As for ‘restraining consumerism’.it’s a no-brainer that hyping people into spurious consumption is doomed by resource and space bottlenecks. It’s also difficult to find the money for consumerist free-for-alls when the economic system has been so debauched by money-handlers and speculators The money is being concentrated in the hands of thoughtless idiots who already have far more than they know what to do with.
Nick, if renewables are such a good option, why is über green Germany turning to coal, to fill the power generation gap caused by decommissioning their nuclear plants? What reason can there be for them to not simply replace their nuclear plants with more wind turbines, other than issues of cost and reliable power generation?
As for restraining consumerism, surely we can agree to disagree on that, to treat that as a separate issue, while deciding a solution to CO2 which keeps both of us happy? Surely it would be better (from your POV at least) to switch society to nuclear power as quickly as possible, to reduce CO2 emissions in the shortest possible timeframe, rather than get bogged down in arguments about the future of capitalism?
Interestingly there have been some developments in clean coal technology which should interest you. Apparently you can combust coal chemically, feeding it pellets of iron oxide as the source of oxygen, rather than burning it directly in air. I don’t know the details of the chemical reaction, but the suggestion is you can create a CO2 emission free coal system.
Willis E on Watts’ blog is just doing a variation on the old denier theme that CO2 is too small a component of the atmosphere to make a difference (using ocean temperatures). Much like a whiff of cyanide can’t kill you, a tiny aspirin couldn’t possibly ease pain and a smidgen of a steroid couldn’t make you run faster or longer.
He figures that he’ll fool some of the people some of the time and he’s right – there are still fools in the world and they tend to hang out together. More fool him.
Crush a few green almonds and guess what – you’ll get a whiff of cyanide. And it won’t kill you. And a tiny Aspirin doesn’t ease the pain, though it has other benefits – 75mg tablets are sold to thin the blood, for people worried about DVT on long air flights.
But scientific ignorance is a hallmark of alarmism.
Yes,scientific ignorance is a hallmark of alarmism,and you and Watts demonstrate it daily. Your alarm motivates you to deny observation and dismiss inconvenient physics.
john byatt says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:34 pm
From that study, every genius who knew that the earth orbited the sun were considered as knowing more science, It was very basic science, What it did show was that people who do not consider themselves competent at science accept that the scientists know more than they, while those who knew the basics thought that they knew more than the scientists, much like eric
Whatever. The survey was designed by people who clearly thought the opposite answer would be the result, so blame their incompetence for pitching it in a way which got an honest answer.
Dumb Scientist. I recommend spending a few minutes just scrolling back through any of the posts in here and you will very quickly find out all about our Eric. We’re quite fond of him.He’s sort of like the crazy sideshow or the comic relief, a clown, if you like. I affectionately call him Bozo from time to time. As for what he actually is, most of us on here can agree that he probably isn’t human. I personally think he’s a cyborg, programmed to automatically trot out denier meme after meme and reproduce almost word for word what he has downloaded from Anthony Watts, Jo Nova and the like. I’ve been monitoring his responses for awhile now and out of the 100 top denier memes written about over at Skepticalscience, I reckon he has so far fathfully reproduced about 65 of them. I’ve also come up with the Worrall Scale. It ranges from 1 to 7 based on the level of wilful ignorance displayed by deniers. Someone with a score of 1 is actually someone who is completely ignorant of climate change science but wants to learn. These people more often than not go on to accept the science. Someone on a 3 often visits denier echo chambers liek WUWT and may even comment, and will also visit sites like this one and with a little bit of patience and some education can be brought around to accepting the science. 4-6 are deniers that no matter what will generally not turn around. Then we have 7, the Erics who not only reject everything, but also do so with so much stupidity, they can sometimes be mistaken for a Poe. But rather than takemy word for it, i urge you to take the time to seek out his comments. Wear headgear!
I think CO2 contributes to global warming, but I find estimates of the level of warming, and arguments that this will cause serious problems, unconvincing.
Some lukewarmers believe CO2 is a serious problem, but dispute the need for immediate action. I don’t agree with that view.
You are contradicting yourself again claiming that CO2 has increased dramatically over the past 16 years then claiming that both the atmosphere and ocean have not further warmed.
going through your posts it would be easy to find continual contradiction
You are contradicting yourself again claiming that CO2 has increased dramatically over the past 16 years then claiming that both the atmosphere and ocean have not further warmed.
going through your posts it would be easy to find continual contradiction
I don’t think it contributes very much. If Richard Lindzen’s estimate of 0.5c / doubling is correct, the total warming to be expected from the ~10% rise in CO2 since the late 90s would be 0.05c – a value which could easily be lost in the noise of other forcings.
I’ve been pretty clear about that all along John – I don’t believe the evidence supports the theory that global warming from CO2 poses any threat – that the costs of any required future adaption are far less than the costs of mitigation.
Watching the Deniers 
I did Yasi in Innisfail. I sure hope that lot have prepared well.
Rusty is a very big system.
450mm rainfall in 30 hours at Pardoo Station just near where the eye crossed to land. Claims that Port Hedland has experienced its longest continuous period of gale force winds.
Quick, build a desalination plant!
Didn’t you mean to say ;”build a dam and harvest cyclone rain?” Port Hedland uses groundwater.
I thought the CSIRO predicted eternal drought – wasn’t this the justification for the desalination plants?
In some ways the CSIRO idiots are funnier than the end of snow crowd in Europe.
http://eric.worrall.name/viner.cgi
“I thought the CSIRO predicted eternal drought” You may have thought they did,but in reality they did not. If you knew anything about the Pilbara,you know they get cyclones often enough,and some deliver intense localised rainfall in an otherwise arid region. So the Pilbara is not in or out of drought,it’s always feast or [more often] famine in summer there.
If all you’ve got to dine out on is David Viners ancient and outdated speculation,it’s no wonder you’re floundering.
You’re forgetting all the Aussie desalination plants which turned out to be useless white elephants.
“useless” …actually,they desalinate water and can supply 10 to 15% of their cities demands. Sure,it would be good if they were never needed. Can you tell me why we won’t need them in the future? Some insight into rainfall trends? [sarc]
“white elephants” ….given that they are only a few years into their design lives,this is a premature comment. And completely wrong in the case of Perth,and Brisbane after floodwater reduced dam water quality.
I’ll grant that some of them are over-costly and they guzzle energybut that is no criticism of their utility. The Sydney plant was built with offsetting wind-power.
Rusty does seems to be hanging around forever. A very slow moving system. Not nice.
On another note – remember when Andrew Bolt distanced himself from Malcolm Roberts because of Roberts’ unsavoury conspiracy theories? Apparently islamophobia is okay for Bolt.
This from Bolt’s blog today (found via a tweet) after Bolt decides that global warming isn’t hurting crops or food prices (he’s not one to let the FAO’s Food Price Index spoil a good yarn). He wrote in criticism of the Centre for American Progress’ efforts to develop solutions to address global warming problems:
“Personally, I think the Center for American Progress missed a fine opportunity for scaremongering. It could have argued instead that global warming helps Islamists.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/global_warming_is_good_for_democracy/
I don’t understand how Bolt is allowed to keep repeating the big lie claiming there’s been no warming for 16 years when its been debunked so thoroughly and repeatedly in column after column. I’ve written the following letter to the editor on this myself :
“In his Thursday ‘Advertiser’ column (Page 24, “Pause for warming effect” inset box 2012 October 18th) Andrew Bolt claimed that new data show a lack of warming over the past 16 years. Mr Bolt is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts – empirical observed evidence collected by NASA NOAA and the CSIRO among others flatly contradicts this false claim. For example, search the NASA website and anyone can find reference to the fact that 2010 was the hottest year on record tying with 2005 and last year was globally the hottest recorded La Nina cycle year. This year as many know but Mr Bolt apparently missed saw the lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record, another key indicator of the reality of our current artificially induced planetary overheating. Bolt’s piece was factually inaccurate and highly misleading and 98% of qualified climatologists, individuals who have spent decades studying and working on understanding the facts and processes and nature of Earth’s climate are agreed that Global Overheating is real and a serious concern. I strongly believe it is overdue that we listened to those climatologists who actually know what they’re talking about on this topic not ideologically blinkered polemicists and request the Advertiser please consider this in future and ideally both issues a correction and runs a counter-piece by a reputable climatologist preferably in Mr Bolt’s place.
Best regards :”
That letter wasn’t published and Bolt has kept on repeating his lie since. You’d think he’d know or have been told better.
At least his TV show doesn’t seem to have reappeared – has it been cancelled for good despite Gina Rhineheart? Hope so.
The claim is now 17 years, I calculated the energy that the earth has trapped over the past 17 years, equivalent to energy released from 200,000,000 Hiroshima bombs,
Must be an accumulation of magic energy – its not causing the surface temperature thermometers to move, and hasn’t done so for 16 years.
And the sea surface is in on the plot – it hasn’t warmed for 13 years.
Of course the accuracy claimed for the ocean heat content estimation is more than a little implausible. The heat capacity of the ocean is so large, an entire year’s global warming, even at IPCC levels, would only be expected to shift ocean temperatures by a few hundredths of a degree.
Given the vast scale of the ocean, and comparatively small number of accurate measurement stations, claiming accuracy of several hundredths of a degree for ocean temperature measurement stretches credibility.
You are ‘more than a little implausible’,Eric. The robotic repetition of nonsense does not make it true. The sixteen years canard is laughable. OLS trend is rising in all indices for that period. And if the ocean has not been warming for over a decade,how come it’s still rising? Before you claim yet another set of observations is suspect you need to think your claims through,and not take any notice of arguments from incredulity [Eschenbach’s rubbish] by incompetents at Watts…really that is the worst site possible for impressionable folk like yourself. A commentator there has been handing Willis his pants,though none of the fools will concede. And that,in a nutshell,is what the site is about:stubborn,willing aggressive ignorance.
The real world is waiting for you when you are ready.
Bolt is being fed his lines by Watts and Watts’ Australian patsies. They are predictably on message. Dull and stupid fellow.
Your logic skills are lacking aren’t they? Too much time worshipping in the church of Watts will do that to you.
Zootie, I simply pointed out two things wrong with the data:-
1. The data also shows a flatspot from 2003
2. I don’t trust the data, because I think the accuracy claimed is nonsense. Even if the measuring instruments might have an accuracy of 1/100 of a degree, it is not plausible they are measuring the temperature of the ocean to that level of accuracy.
As for using SLR as a proxy for ocean heat content, we don’t even know for sure what the SLR is exactly. Find 2 tide level gauges which agree and you’ll be doing well. And as I showed with the JPL paper I produced, satellite telemetry systems such as GRACE have a cumulative random error of 0.6c / year, which the paper itself shows as sudden unexpected accelerations in SLR.
Click to access bar-sever.pdf
“I don’t trust the data” The data show a continued warming trend,which is consistent with other observations- measured SLR and ship observations.
“It is not plausible” !! Eric,you do not have the competence to judge. The process does not involve ‘finding two tide gauges that agree’ No tide gauge will show the exact movement rates as any other.. SLR assessment samples a lot more data than that as you bleeding well know. And GRACE has nothing to do with the satellite work on SLR
You are a motivated rejectionist. Face it. It’s obvious.
From that study, every genius who knew that the earth orbited the sun were considered as knowing more science, It was very basic science, What it did show was that people who do not consider themselves competent at science accept that the scientists know more than they, while those who knew the basics thought that they knew more than the scientists, much like eric
You are a motivated rejectionist. Face it. It’s obvious.
Nonsense. If I thought for one minute that the alarmist case was plausible, I would be campaigning for an acceptable solution – to decarbonise the economy by converting all energy production to nuclear power.
The fact that you guys are not wholeheartedly campaigning for nuclear power to replace fossil fuel, and instead are frittering your waning political capital on nonsense solutions such as wind turbines, and campaigns to restrain consumerism, makes me worry about *your* motivations.
Because if you really cared about CO2, you would be willing to meet your opponents on middle ground – you would stop wasting time with alternative energy, at least in the short term, and wholeheartedly embrace the nuclear option, as the only possible solution which might find acceptance in time to save the planet.
So I wonder if restraining consumerism is your real motivation.
As usual you argue from your own ignorance, I write letters, we need everything we can get, even short term nuclear untlll we convert 100% to renewable, the sad thing is that conversion to total renewable is possible right now
http://bravenewclimate.com/
and
beyond zero emissions.
Conversion to total renewables is nonsense. Even if you somehow found the money to build enough turbines to match the capacity of all other generation systems in existence, and automobiles, and ships, and other manmade CO2 sources, due to the intermittency, you would still have to keep CO2 emitting gas turbine generators idling, ready to stabilise the grid in anytime the wind dropped.
By comparison, a new series of nuclear reactors would emit near zero CO2, and would provide the stable reliable supply needed by modern systems.
Read the problems Germany is experiencing with grid instability, and imagine what would happen if they tried to source more than 30% of their power from wind.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/wind_energy/
The only safe, reliable, and affordable way to cut carbon emissions is nuclear energy. The sooner you guys realise this, the sooner we’ll inject some rationality into the debate.
Eric,I’ll meet on the grounds of nuclear: I was bemused when the Germans decided to fold on nuclear using the Japan earthquake as a reason. I think that is unrealistic and an overreaction,though there may be less discussed reasons around the age and replacement cost of some of their facilities.
But you ridicule renewables without thought,because you swallow the manipulations of those with vested FF interests who have prominence if not dominance in the ‘media’. Solar has made an enormous impact on energy demand from non-renewables,and we have barely scratched the potential in terms of roof area. I’d try and be a little less anxious if I were you.
As for ‘restraining consumerism’.it’s a no-brainer that hyping people into spurious consumption is doomed by resource and space bottlenecks. It’s also difficult to find the money for consumerist free-for-alls when the economic system has been so debauched by money-handlers and speculators The money is being concentrated in the hands of thoughtless idiots who already have far more than they know what to do with.
dont mention the germans! we’ll get godwins from eric. he loves talking about eugenics
Nick, if renewables are such a good option, why is über green Germany turning to coal, to fill the power generation gap caused by decommissioning their nuclear plants? What reason can there be for them to not simply replace their nuclear plants with more wind turbines, other than issues of cost and reliable power generation?
As for restraining consumerism, surely we can agree to disagree on that, to treat that as a separate issue, while deciding a solution to CO2 which keeps both of us happy? Surely it would be better (from your POV at least) to switch society to nuclear power as quickly as possible, to reduce CO2 emissions in the shortest possible timeframe, rather than get bogged down in arguments about the future of capitalism?
because because because as usual you are arguing from your own ignorance
Yet strangely they need that extra coal energy – almost as if wind energy is deficient in some way.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19/merkel-s-green-shift-forces-germany-to-burn-more-coal-energy.html
Interestingly there have been some developments in clean coal technology which should interest you. Apparently you can combust coal chemically, feeding it pellets of iron oxide as the source of oxygen, rather than burning it directly in air. I don’t know the details of the chemical reaction, but the suggestion is you can create a CO2 emission free coal system.
Willis E on Watts’ blog is just doing a variation on the old denier theme that CO2 is too small a component of the atmosphere to make a difference (using ocean temperatures). Much like a whiff of cyanide can’t kill you, a tiny aspirin couldn’t possibly ease pain and a smidgen of a steroid couldn’t make you run faster or longer.
He figures that he’ll fool some of the people some of the time and he’s right – there are still fools in the world and they tend to hang out together. More fool him.
Crush a few green almonds and guess what – you’ll get a whiff of cyanide. And it won’t kill you. And a tiny Aspirin doesn’t ease the pain, though it has other benefits – 75mg tablets are sold to thin the blood, for people worried about DVT on long air flights.
But scientific ignorance is a hallmark of alarmism.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/
Yes,scientific ignorance is a hallmark of alarmism,and you and Watts demonstrate it daily. Your alarm motivates you to deny observation and dismiss inconvenient physics.
john byatt says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:34 pm
From that study, every genius who knew that the earth orbited the sun were considered as knowing more science, It was very basic science, What it did show was that people who do not consider themselves competent at science accept that the scientists know more than they, while those who knew the basics thought that they knew more than the scientists, much like eric
Whatever. The survey was designed by people who clearly thought the opposite answer would be the result, so blame their incompetence for pitching it in a way which got an honest answer.
Meanwhile its good for a laugh.
You are confusing scepticism and denial, Me sceptic, you denier
Eric, would you describe yourself as a lukewarmer, or something else?
Dumb Scientist. I recommend spending a few minutes just scrolling back through any of the posts in here and you will very quickly find out all about our Eric. We’re quite fond of him.He’s sort of like the crazy sideshow or the comic relief, a clown, if you like. I affectionately call him Bozo from time to time. As for what he actually is, most of us on here can agree that he probably isn’t human. I personally think he’s a cyborg, programmed to automatically trot out denier meme after meme and reproduce almost word for word what he has downloaded from Anthony Watts, Jo Nova and the like. I’ve been monitoring his responses for awhile now and out of the 100 top denier memes written about over at Skepticalscience, I reckon he has so far fathfully reproduced about 65 of them. I’ve also come up with the Worrall Scale. It ranges from 1 to 7 based on the level of wilful ignorance displayed by deniers. Someone with a score of 1 is actually someone who is completely ignorant of climate change science but wants to learn. These people more often than not go on to accept the science. Someone on a 3 often visits denier echo chambers liek WUWT and may even comment, and will also visit sites like this one and with a little bit of patience and some education can be brought around to accepting the science. 4-6 are deniers that no matter what will generally not turn around. Then we have 7, the Erics who not only reject everything, but also do so with so much stupidity, they can sometimes be mistaken for a Poe. But rather than takemy word for it, i urge you to take the time to seek out his comments. Wear headgear!
Depends on your definition of a lukewarmer.
I think CO2 contributes to global warming, but I find estimates of the level of warming, and arguments that this will cause serious problems, unconvincing.
Some lukewarmers believe CO2 is a serious problem, but dispute the need for immediate action. I don’t agree with that view.
You are contradicting yourself again claiming that CO2 has increased dramatically over the past 16 years then claiming that both the atmosphere and ocean have not further warmed.
going through your posts it would be easy to find continual contradiction
We have really moved on from the fact that it is warming and the cause,
science now wants to know what will happen to the climate apart from the obvious.
remember erics claim that a warming Arctic would balance out with the tropics and produce less extremes
back to front as usual
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225153128.htm
You are contradicting yourself again claiming that CO2 has increased dramatically over the past 16 years then claiming that both the atmosphere and ocean have not further warmed.
going through your posts it would be easy to find continual contradiction
I don’t think it contributes very much. If Richard Lindzen’s estimate of 0.5c / doubling is correct, the total warming to be expected from the ~10% rise in CO2 since the late 90s would be 0.05c – a value which could easily be lost in the noise of other forcings.
Bit hard to work out what eric is disagreeing with there, possibly more at the tepid end of lukewarm?
I’ve been pretty clear about that all along John – I don’t believe the evidence supports the theory that global warming from CO2 poses any threat – that the costs of any required future adaption are far less than the costs of mitigation.
[…] 2013/02/26: WtD: Image of the day: Cyclone Rusty hitting WA […]