Global Warming Predictions

[skierinvermont]

No, he's not. Read it again. He said he regretted it shortly after. You are putting words in his mouth now trying to defend him, c'mon!

You're right, nevertheless he may have understood better shortly thereafter the effect on the water cycle.

Even if that's not the case, his 1988 testimony was essentially a report on his 1988 model and paper which show heat and drought not floods.

[BethesdaWX]

There would be no solar warming if the climate system was full of negative feedbacks...positive feedbacks are required to enhance the 0.1C induced by solar variability.

Feedbacks can be positive to one forcing, and negative to another, depending on if it is internal or external from the climate system. Throughout all time, Co2 has been driven by temperature, and there is Zero evidence Increased Co2 has caused warming in the past. Millions of years ago cannot be compared to due the climate system's completely different structure of function.

Clumping it all together = FAIL

[tacoman25]

You're right, nevertheless he may have understood better shortly thereafter the effect on the water cycle.

Even if that's not the case, his 1988 testimony was essentially a report on his 1988 model and paper which show heat and drought not floods.

Regardless, he conveniently presented that information before Congress during a period of unusual heat/drought in the U.S., and did everything he could to utilize the current weather in a scientific climate presentation. Hansen set the blueprint for skeptic/warmists alike in the decades to come, using current weather events to further their argument.

[tacoman25]

The 1982 Chichon eruption would have lowered the rise from 1982 to 1983, since the peak effect takes 1-2 years. Solar didn't jump much from 97 to 98 and it also didn't jump much from 09-10. Solar is a bigger factor across 5+ years.. not 1 year.

Solar jumped big-time from 1996 to 1998. As you said, it's not a 1 year deal, but 1997-98 was during a period of solar activity jumping up, while 2009-10 saw basically an extension of very low solar activity (and perhaps more negative forcing on 2010 with a 1-2 year lag from the minimum).

My point is that there are other factors that influence year to year changes, so I don't think that is a solid argument.

[skierinvermont]

Regardless, he conveniently presented that information before Congress during a period of unusual heat/drought in the U.S., and did everything he could to utilize the current weather in a scientific climate presentation. Hansen set the blueprint for skeptic/warmists alike in the decades to come, using current weather events to further their argument.

He specifically noted in his testimony that weather events like heat waves or coldspells don't prove anything. He was pretty scientific in his presentation of how heatwaves would change, carefully explaining how a 1/3 year event would gradually become a 1/2 year event but that it would be impossible to ever attribute a single event to AGW.

I find that to be a very good explanation of how weather relates to climate.

[skierinvermont]

Solar jumped big-time from 1996 to 1998. As you said, it's not a 1 year deal, but 1997-98 was during a period of solar activity jumping up, while 2009-10 saw basically an extension of very low solar activity (and perhaps more negative forcing on 2010 with a 1-2 year lag from the minimum).

My point is that there are other factors that influence year to year changes, so I don't think that is a solid argument.

So you're telling me it's not because of ENSO that 1973, 1983, and 1998, all much stronger El Ninos, ALL jumped between .14 and .21C from the previous year, while 2010 which was notably weaker jumped only .05C?

[BethesdaWX]

So you're telling me it's not because of ENSO that 1973, 1983, and 1998, all much stronger El Ninos, ALL jumped between .14 and .21C from the previous year, while 2010 which was notably weaker jumped only .05C?

Its Both

[skierinvermont]

Its Both

Perhaps, which is why I conservatively said it would be .05-.1C warmer instead of the full .12C, had it experienced the full .17C jump from 2009.

[tacoman25]

So you're telling me it's not because of ENSO that 1973, 1983, and 1998, all much stronger El Ninos, ALL jumped between .14 and .21C from the previous year, while 2010 which was notably weaker jumped only .05C?

I'm saying that's not a solid argument, because there are other factors. 2004 to 2005 saw a big jump as well, yet that wasn't because of a major El Nino. 2001 to 2002 also saw a significant jump. 1986 to 1987 saw a massive jump, also not a top tier Nino. 1989 to 1990 saw a big jump, not even a Nino.

[LakeEffectKing]

Or you could boil it all down to the relatively simple physics describing why things in a vacuum warm and cool. You love to make things complicated, science seeks to simplify. The TOA imbalance tells us the world is warming and spectroscopy informs us why. If you what to understand all the underlying complications that lead to that result, go ahead, be my guest.

Is there a site that charts these measurements real-time??

Viewing the TOA imbalance measurements, and then drawing "conclusive" conclusions using spectroscopy fingerprints as supporting evidence, to me, is just exploiting 2 already known facts (40 year warming trend and increasing CO2), utilizing different proxies, but characterizing the data as "more supportive evidence".....

We know global surface temperatures on average, increased (possibly natural forcings, possibly AGW forcings, or a mix) and CO2 has steadily increased (and we KNOW that we put a small portion of the total CO2 into the atmosphere that can be traced). So trying to portray the TOA and spectroscopy data as some independent evidence of the AGW hypothesis, without pausing to consider that TOA imbalance can fluctuate regardless of the delta CO2 levels, is just rehashing the same "evidence for AGW" correlation......"we've warmed a bit.....and we've put a little extra CO2" ........we already know that.....

[skierinvermont]

Is there a site that charts these measurements real-time??

Viewing the TOA imbalance measurements, and then drawing "conclusive" conclusions using spectroscopy fingerprints as supporting evidence, to me, is just exploiting 2 already known facts (40 year warming trend and increasing CO2), utilizing different proxies, but characterizing the data as "more supportive evidence".....

We know global surface temperatures on average, increased (possibly natural forcings, possibly AGW forcings, or a mix) and CO2 has steadily increased (and we KNOW that we put a small portion of the total CO2 into the atmosphere that can be traced). So trying to portray the TOA and spectroscopy data as some independent evidence of the AGW hypothesis, without pausing to consider that TOA imbalance can fluctuate regardless of the delta CO2 levels, is just rehashing the same "evidence for AGW" correlation......"we've warmed a bit.....and we've put a little extra CO2" ........we already know that.....

The TOA energy imbalance is a much stronger and separate piece of empirical evidence than the simple facts that temps and CO2 have gone up. The TOA energy imbalance is directly attributable to CO2.

If it was a natural factor causing the TOA energy imbalance, say high cloud cover has increased (which traps outgoing LW radiation and warms the earth), then we would expect the TOA imbalance to be manifested as declining emissions of LW radiation at those frequencies absorbed by high clouds. So it's not high clouds.

Or say it was the ocean cycles like the PDO and El Ninos causing the warming. The theoretical mechanism is that the ocean surface warms, thereby emitting more LW radiation into the atmosphere. In this case we would actually expect the earth to be on net LOSING heat. Instead, we observe the TOA imbalance is negative. So it's not ocean cycles.

Or say that some complex meteorological phenomenon increased water vapor in the atmosphere. In this case we would expect the TOA imbalance to be manifested as declining emissions specifically at the frequencies absorbed by water vapor.

Instead, what we observe is that the atmosphere is becoming increasingly opaque to LW radiation precisely at the spectrum absorbed by CO2. This is direct empirical evidence that CO2 is responsible for the TOA energy imbalance, and for the warming of the earth.

[BethesdaWX]

The TOA energy imbalance is a much stronger and separate piece of empirical evidence than the simple facts that temps and CO2 have gone up. The TOA energy imbalance is directly attributable to CO2.

If it was a natural factor causing the TOA energy imbalance, say high cloud cover has increased (which traps outgoing LW radiation and warms the earth), then we would expect the TOA imbalance to be manifested as declining emissions of LW radiation at those frequencies absorbed by high clouds. So it's not high clouds.

Or say it was the ocean cycles like the PDO and El Ninos causing the warming. The theoretical mechanism is that the ocean surface warms, thereby emitting more LW radiation into the atmosphere. In this case we would actually expect the earth to be on net LOSING heat. Instead, we observe the TOA imbalance is negative. So it's not ocean cycles.

Or say that some complex meteorological phenomenon increased water vapor in the atmosphere. In this case we would expect the TOA imbalance to be manifested as declining emissions specifically at the frequencies absorbed by water vapor.

Instead, what we observe is that the atmosphere is becoming increasingly opaque to LW radiation precisely at the spectrum absorbed by CO2. This is direct empirical evidence that CO2 is responsible for the TOA energy imbalance, and for the warming of the earth.

waaaaaaat?????

The Radiative Imbalance caused by added Co2 by humans is too small to measure even with todays Persise satellites, it is applied theoretically. We cannot even measure Global Cloud Cover trends. Oceans emitting LW raditation when they're warm will cause the earth to lose Energy? Thats not how the climate system works, and would Not be possible if GCC is lessening due to warming...Negative feedbacks if GCC lessens due to warming temps, as the IPCC states, PDO/Solar warming of the Planet would lead to less GCC and more radiation coming in, being absorbed by the oceans, thus warming them. However, in order for the IPCC theory to work, TSI needs to have very little impact on the climate system...which you obviously disagree with in your trend analysis. If the Sun is indeed lowering GCC and warming the oceans, (as has been theorized and getting more attention) then its really silly to use an indice where we have little to no knowlegde on. But the IPCC is assuming Rapid Equilibrium to a minor TSI impact (ignoring potential feedbacks FTW), and made a huge blunder in the process.

http://www.leif.org/...L039628-pip.pdf

So.........

Your argument is laughable argument regarding out understanding of Feedbacks.

The climate system works in 1 way and one way ony, " Forcing & Feedback". We don't know what forcing produces what feedback, and what feedback intercorrelates to other feedbacks,and we cannot measure it. Thus, you can have one forcing Masked, and another forcing Boosted. The biggest one...Global Cloud Cover. Is lower GCC a response to warming, or the Cause of Warming..its assumed contrary! Many studies have correlated the Sun to GCC changes...and if correct, can account for 75% of the warming seen since 1850. The remaining from 1979-2006 in the +PDO.

Just to mention one, there are thousands. because if one forcing is masked, there are several that can lead to warming of equal or greater magnitude..Ocean absorbing TSI energy and building Up in the supposed Lengthy Equilibrium), even a slight warming of the oceans will eventually result in a significanrt warming of the atmosphere.

Its not simple...that is why AGW will fail, I promise you.

[nzucker]

2010 wasn't anywhere near close to the 1998 event.. it's closer to the infamous 06-07 event than the 1998 event.

You keep referring to the 06-07 event as "infamous." What was so infamous about it?

Many other factors added significantly to the warming besides ENSO.

The West Based ENSO events have a much higher WP than East based Ones....The "El Nino Modoki" Index is a good measure for the actual Warming Contributed by ENSO

The problem with this analysis is that the regions are different sizes: of course Region 3.4 is going to have more impact on global temperatures, it's so much bigger than Region 1.2. Also, if you're talking about Region 4, most El Niños just don't get that warm out there...the Super El Niños are all highly east-based like 97-98, 82-83, and 72-73. Strong west-based Niños like 57-58 and 09-10 are rarer (unfortunately for winter lovers) and never reach the same ONI peak as their east-based counterparts.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a 1998 type event 2-3 years from now if it was .15-.2C warmer than 1998 on GISS, STAR, Fu, V&G. UAH and RSS I'd expect more like .1-.15C warmer. HadCRUT probably only .05-.1C warmer since it misses the rapid warming in the arctic.

For a 2010 type event, knock off .05-.1C.

If we had a 1998 El Niño and the consensus of global temperature sources was only around .12C warmer (using your figures), that would be a victory for skeptics. 1998 would have been approximately 15 years ago, and the Earth was supposed to be warming .2C/decade, or .3C in that time period...to have just a bit more than a third of that warming with a 1998 Super El Niño would show that AGW wasn't having nearly the effect it was supposed to.

His 1988 paper contains no discussion of flooding .. it's all about heatwaves and droughts. This paper was of course written long before the heatwaves that summer. It appears to me Hansen's model didn't simulate increased flooding. Perhaps between 1988 and 1989 his understanding had evolved.

Given his 1988 testimony was largely a summary of his model's results, and his model didn't simulate more flooding but did simulate more heatwaves and droughts, I am not at all surprised that that came up in his testimony.

If he talks about huge worldwide droughts, then there must be heavy precipitation/flooding potential to match it unless somehow global precipitation takes a precipitous drop (which makes little sense in a far warmer world). There's a constant amount of water in the hydrological cycle; what's taken away from one area in the form of a drought must be added to another area, for the most part.

[BethesdaWX]

The problem with this analysis is that the regions are different sizes: of course Region 3.4 is going to have more impact on global temperatures, it's so much bigger than Region 1.2. Also, if you're talking about Region 4, most El Niños just don't get that warm out there...the Super El Niños are all highly east-based like 97-98, 82-83, and 72-73. Strong west-based Niños like 57-58 and 09-10 are rarer (unfortunately for winter lovers) and never reach the same ONI peak as their east-based counterparts.

N3.4 contains parts of N3 & N4, N3 was very warm in 1998, N4 was about neutral. The Very warm anoms didn't extend into the entire ENSO regions, N4 being the most important.

Although I'm not sure why we are even comparing the 1998 Nino to the 2010 Nino,,,they were obviously completely different animals.

[nzucker]

N3.4 contains parts of N3 & N4, N3 was very warm in 1998, N4 was about neutral. The Very warm anoms didn't extend into the entire ENSO regions, N4 being the most important.

Although I'm not sure why we are even comparing the 1998 Nino to the 2010 Nino,,,they were obviously completely different animals.

I don't understand what you are saying....If Niño 4 is the most important in determining global temperature trends, and 1998 didn't have that much warmth in this region, why was it so warm globally?

Also, Bethesda, you're not going to find any of the big Niños were that warm in Region 4...it just doesn't happen. The three strongest Niños on record, 72-73, 82-83, and 97-98, were all significantly east-based. The western regions just aren't subject to the same extreme fluctuations....SSTs are naturally higher in Region 4 than Region 1 anyway, and there's a limit to how warm the ocean can get.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't understand what you are saying....If Niño 4 is the most important in determining global temperature trends, and 1998 didn't have that much warmth in this region, why was it so warm globally?

Also, Bethesda, you're not going to find any of the big Niños were that warm in Region 4...it just doesn't happen. The three strongest Niños on record, 72-73, 82-83, and 97-98, were all significantly east-based. The western regions just aren't subject to the same extreme fluctuations....SSTs are naturally higher in Region 4 than Region 1 anyway, and there's a limit to how warm the ocean can get.

Well I think you're assuming that N4 is dominant over everything, which isn't true. The western Regions of ENSO are more important than the Eastern regions, its not like its life or death. 1998 was just so strong in the Eastern sections of N3.4 were boiling.

2010 was the first "strong" west Based Nino in our records, I believe.

[nzucker]

2010 was the first "strong" west Based Nino in our records, I believe.

57-58 was pretty west-based, peaked at 1.7C on the ONI scale. February was the most west-based of the months, and interestingly the best in terms of winter weather for the East. February 15, 1958 had a triple-phaser snowstorm that destroyed DC-Boston, with some parts of Pennsylvania receiving over 40" of snow; this was followed by a brutal arctic outbreak. February 1958 had the most west-based -NAO pattern on record until last year took that crown. My town recorded 80" of snow in Winter 57-58 against a long-term average of 36"...Here were the SST anomalies for that month:

Region 1.2: +0.67C

Region 3: +1.00C

Region 4: +1.27C

Region 3.4: +1.52C

The rest of the winter had similar anomalies but less extremely west-based.

[BethesdaWX]

57-58 was pretty west-based, peaked at 1.7C on the ONI scale. February was the most west-based of the months, and interestingly the best in terms of winter weather for the East. February 15, 1958 had a triple-phaser snowstorm that destroyed DC-Boston, with some parts of Pennsylvania receiving over 40" of snow; this was followed by a brutal arctic outbreak. February 1958 had the most west-based -NAO pattern on record until last year took that crown. My town recorded 80" of snow in Winter 57-58 against a long-term average of 36"...Here were the SST anomalies for that month:

Region 1.2: +0.67C

Region 3: +1.00C

Region 4: +1.27C

Region 3.4: +1.52C

The rest of the winter had similar anomalies but less extremely west-based.

I heard about the triple phaser

I don't trust data before 1979, just my thing.

[skierinvermont]

You keep referring to the 06-07 event as "infamous." What was so infamous about it?

Sarcasm.

If we had a 1998 El Niño and the consensus of global temperature sources was only around .12C warmer (using your figures), that would be a victory for skeptics. 1998 would have been approximately 15 years ago, and the Earth was supposed to be warming .2C/decade, or .3C in that time period...to have just a bit more than a third of that warming with a 1998 Super El Niño would show that AGW wasn't having nearly the effect it was supposed to.

I said lower numbers for UAH, RSS and HadCRUT because they're biased cold (HadCRUT because it misses the arctic, UAH and RSS because of the discrepancies with radiosonde and other satellite methods like Fu, VG, and Zou). For GISS, or HadCRUT w/ UAH poles, or for Zou (satellite), which I believe are better representatives of the actual global temperature, I said .15-.2C.

That's close to the theoretical expectation, but a bit lower because the next solar max will be lower and it will be immediately following a long minimum. Also the -PDO and generally more Nina-ish conditions of the 2006-2012 period compared to 1990-1997. Also I tend to have more confidence in the slower warming estimates rather than the mean estimate.

[BethesdaWX]

I said lower numbers for UAH, RSS and HadCRUT because they're biased cold (HadCRUT because it misses the arctic, UAH and RSS because of the discrepancies with radiosonde and other satellite methods like Fu, VG, and Zou). For GISS, or HadCRUT w/ UAH poles, or for Zou (satellite), which I believe are better representatives of the actual global temperature, I said .15-.2C.

That's close to the theoretical expectation, but a bit lower because the next solar max will be lower and it will be immediately following a long minimum.

More BS from you

UAH is not biased cold, as demonstrated by Spencer ande Christy...you have already been debunked on this matter... UAH uses RAOBCORE & RICH as well, everything its a 1 system cluster!... UAH is just as likely to be biased warm.

The total EP of +/-0.05C decade at most is not refutable at this time. UAH is just as likely to be biased warm.

If you want to scream about a 0.01C/decade trend Via GISS, go ahead, but I can still laugh knowing that higher quality data like UAH will win out.

[skierinvermont]

More BS from you

UAH is not biased cold, as demonstrated by Spencer ande Christy...you have already been debunked on this matter... UAH uses RAOBCORE & RICH as well, everything its a 1 system cluster!... UAH is just as likely to be biased warm.

The total EP of +/-0.05C decade at most is not refutable at this time. UAH is just as likely to be biased warm.

If you want to scream about a 0.01C/decade trend Via GISS, go ahead, but I can still laugh knowing that higher quality data like UAH will win out.

1. UAH doesn't "use" Raobcore or Rich. UAH uses satellite data. Raobcore and RICH are radiosonde data.

2. +/-.05C/decade is only the quantifiable error for UAH. Zou, VG and Fou find closer to .2-.24C/decade +/-.05C/decade. Why should I pick UAH over these three? They have similar or smaller error bars and find much more warming using the same MSU and AMSU satellite data.

[BethesdaWX]

1. UAH doesn't "use" Raobcore or Rich. UAH uses satellite data. Raobcore and RICH are radiosonde data.

2. +/-.05C/decade is only the quantifiable error for UAH. Zou, VG and Fou find closer to .2-.24C/decade +/-.05C/decade. Why should I pick UAH over these three? They have similar or smaller error bars and find much more warming using the same MSU and AMSU satellite data.

Old Studies......Its the radiosonde datasets that were the problem, as Christy and Spencer pointed out and demonstrated. In their paper, they explained the issues regarding the Infrared Channel, that ws picked up by ECMWF as well, and was corrected for. Total EP was found to be +/- 0.05C per decade...Meteorological error is found in the RADIOSONDE data...aka, describing discrepancy, as calibrations for stratosphere provide problems. Again, you are posting refuted OBS based on errors in Radiosonde data.

Fantastic Site here, there is no real difference between HADat, & RAOBCORE/RICH now that they have been corrected for

http://www.ssmi.com/...validation.html

This leads us to suspect that the radiosonde results are less reliable higher in the atmosphere. This is likely to be at least part of the cause for the decreasing agreement between radiosonde results and satellite results as we move to higher altitudes.

There is a large difference between RSS and UAH TMT in the tropics, with RSS being in good agreement with the RAOBCORE measurement, and UAH showing agreement with the RUK and HadAT results. In the lower stratosphere, RSS shows substantially less cooling than UAH at all latitudes. Unfortunately, due to the suspect reliability of the radiosonde datasets in the stratosphere, they cannot be used to unambiguously determine which satellite dataset is closer to being correct.

RSS satellite was the one that ended up being adjusted to Match UAH for these specific issues at higher Lattitudes

[skierinvermont]

Old Studies......Its the radiosonde datasets that were the problem, as Christy and Spencer pointed out and demonstrated. In their paper, they explained the issues regarding the Infrared Channel, that ws picked up by ECMWF as well, and was corrected for. Total EP was found to be +/- 0.05C per decade...Meteorological error is found in the RADIOSONDE data...aka, describing discrepancy, as calibrations for stratosphere provide problems. Again, you are posting refuted OBS based on errors in Radiosonde data.

Fantastic Site here, there is no real difference between HADat, & RAOBCORE/RICH now that they have been corrected for

http://www.ssmi.com/...validation.html

Not true.. that site shows HadAT TLT warming .019C/decade faster than UAH, RAOBCORE warms .009C/decade faster, RICH warms .016C/decade faster. For TMT it is .04C/decade+++ for all of them.

You can repeat that the error is only +/-.05C/decade as many times as you want to. The fact remains that

1. Not all error is quantifiable in numbers. +/-.05C/decade represents only the quantifiable error.

2. Zou, VG, and Fu all find trends closer to .2C/decade which is outside of UAH's confidence interval. They also have small confidence intervals of around +/-.05C/decade as well. Why should I pick UAH over these other three sources when the error bars are the same for all 4 and UAH is by far the coldest of all 4?

Try thinking about that while you're high.. I'm going to bed for real now.

[BethesdaWX]

This leads us to suspect that the radiosonde results are less reliable higher in the atmosphere. This is likely to be at least part of the cause for the decreasing agreement between radiosonde results and satellite results as we move to higher altitudes.

There is a large difference between RSS and UAH TMT in the tropics, with RSS being in good agreement with the RAOBCORE measurement, and UAH showing agreement with the RUK and HadAT results. In the lower stratosphere, RSS shows substantially less cooling than UAH at all latitudes. Unfortunately, due to the suspect reliability of the radiosonde datasets in the stratosphere, they cannot be used to unambiguously determine which satellite dataset is closer to being correct.

RSS satellite was the one that ended up being adjusted to Match UAH for these specific issues at higher Lattitudes

The Infrared Channel in RAOBCORE being adjusted is now widely accepted, and applied to all datasets

[BethesdaWX]

Not true.. that site shows HadAT TLT warming .019C/decade faster than UAH, RAOBCORE warms .009C/decade faster, RICH warms .016C/decade faster. For TMT it is .04C/decade+++ for all of them.

You can repeat that the error is only +/-.05C/decade as many times as you want to. The fact remains that

1. Not all error is quantifiable in numbers. +/-.05C/decade represents only the quantifiable error.

2. Zou, VG, and Fu all find trends closer to .2C/decade which is outside of UAH's confidence interval. They also have small confidence intervals of around +/-.05C/decade as well. Why should I pick UAH over these other three sources when the error bars are the same for all 4 and UAH is by far the coldest of all 4?

Try thinking about that while you're high.. I'm going to bed for real now.

I keep telling you

Spencer's analysis puts the issues to rest, because they incorrectly analysed an uncorrected infrared channel in RAOBCORE.

Be sure to use RAOBCORE v1.4 and not RAOBCORE v1.2

[tacoman25]

Can we stick to the scientific studies themselves instead of sensationalized and manipulated comments that appear in the media?

Predictions of global warming have remained fairly unchanged since the mid 1970s at between 2-4.5C equilibrium sensitivity per doubling of CO2. Climate models have generally been fairly accurate in predicting and simulating temperatures of the past few decades.

But it's ok to judge skeptic predictions made by amateurs?

Ladies and gentlemen, hypocrisy at its finest. Exhibit A: skiier's most recent thread.

[skierinvermont]

But it's ok to judge skeptic predictions made by amateurs?

Ladies and gentlemen, hypocrisy at its finest. Exhibit A: skiier's most recent thread.

As explained, it's not at all hypocritical you are simply taking statements out of context. In terms of learning more about the actual science, no I don't think off-the cuff poorly thought out comments to the media are very relevant compared to what a scientist publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, especially when they are in direct contradiction to what the given scientist has published in peer-reviewed journals. Sure we can criticize them and agree they were poorly thought out. What I object to is using those same comments to try and undermine good peer-reviewed science.

The predictions in question in my thread represent deeply held opinions about how the climate works for the people that made the comments. And I'm not using these comments to try and discredit peer-reviewed literature. Those are two fundamental differences between my thread and the comment you have quoted.

All you're doing now is trying to play semantic "gotcha games" because you're an apologist for climate stupidity and disinformation and there's no other way to try and defend the stupidity and disinformation on display in the thread than to attack my motives.

[tacoman25]

As explained, it's not at all hypocritical you are simply taking statements out of context. In terms of learning more about the actual science, no I don't think off-the cuff poorly thought out comments to the media are very relevant compared to what a scientist publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, especially when they are in direct contradiction to what the given scientist has published in peer-reviewed journals. Sure we can criticize them and agree they were poorly thought out. What I object to is using those same comments to try and undermine good peer-reviewed science.

The predictions in question in my thread represent deeply held opinions about how the climate works for the people that made the comments. And I'm not using these comments to try and discredit peer-reviewed literature. Those are two fundamental differences between my thread and the comment you have quoted.

All you're doing now is trying to play semantic "gotcha games" because you're an apologist for climate stupidity and disinformation and there's no other way to try and defend the stupidity and disinformation on display in the thread than to personally attack me.

1. Who said anything about undermining good ol' peer reviewed science? Just an assumption on your part. I didn't make any statement about how the facts in this thread reflect on peer reviewed science. This thread was simply about AGW predictions over the past 20 years...if you want to interpret that as "undermining" anything, that's your own assumption.

2. Your thread is an obvious attempt to discredit skeptics, and singles out mainly people on this board. You aren't "sticking up for the science", you are merely making easy attacks on statements made by amateurs.

You can name call me all you want, but it's obvious you can't handle the fact that I caught you with your pants down: making a whole thread that completely goes against what you yourself said.

If only professional, scientific AGW predictions should be judged, why did you make a thread doing the opposite? You can't honestly defend that.

[nzucker]

1. Who said anything about undermining good ol' peer reviewed science? Just an assumption on your part. I didn't make any statement about how the facts in this thread reflect on peer reviewed science. This thread was simply about AGW predictions over the past 20 years...if you want to interpret as "undermining" anything, that's your own assumption.

2. Your thread is an obvious attempt to discredit skeptics, and singles out mainly people on this board. You aren't "sticking up for the science", you are merely making easy attacks on statements made by amateurs.

You can name call me all you want, but it's obvious you can't handle the fact that I caught you with your pants down: making a whole thread that completely goes against what you yourself said.

If only professional, scientific AGW predictions should be judged, why did you make a thread doing the opposite? You can't honesty defend that.

Exactly: Bethesda and I didn't publish our predictions in a peer-reviewed paper, so it shouldn't matter what we said. After all, casual off-the-cuff remarks aren't important, right, Skier?

[skierinvermont]

Exactly: Bethesda and I didn't publish our predictions in a peer-reviewed paper, so it shouldn't matter what we said. After all, casual off-the-cuff remarks aren't important, right, Skier?

I never said that at all. In fact I've said the opposite dozens of times in the past and in the last 12 hours. You are so desperate you have to put words in my mouth.

What I have said is not that off-the cuff marks do not matter, but that they do not reflect upon peer-reviewed science. I believe that they matter a great deal. And I have said so on numerous occasions and that the remarks are wrong, stupid and irresponsible.

Despite repeating this dozens of times in the past and over the last 12 hours, you continue to repeat the fraudulent claim that I believe all off-the cuff remarks should be completely ignored.