Now we know who pays our trolls

[ben4vols]

^^^ still doesn't make your assertion factual.

I'm not sure why people are allowed to continually post debunked denier claptrap in this forum.

Trix, the more times you say it doesn't make it true. You guys are losing believers (in the AGW religion) left and right. May be time for a come to Jesus meeting at the next IPCC big tent revival.

James Lovelock seems to disagree with you...

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

Mojib Latif and Jochem Marotzke seem to disagree with you too...

Moreover, Latif confirmed in the interview that the stop in global warming over the last 12 years was caused by ocean cycles. Authors Vahrenholt and Lüning have the very same opinion in their book. Anything else would be surprising as the book itself is in part based on Latif’s work. Interestingly, even climate scientist Prof. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Plank Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg said in an interview yesterday with the TAZ daily that ocean cycles were the main reason for the stopped global warming since the year 2000. Thus the darling aerosol joker used by the IPCC is stripped of it’s importance.

[A-L-E-K]

I'm not sure why people are allowed to continually post debunked denier claptrap in this forum.

[ben4vols]

also ben4vols smells like BethesdaBoy/physicsguy21

You really hate to get smacked with the truth don't you? I like you debate tactic though, guilt by association. Why don't you just deal with the topic at hand?

As for the "source" of my quotes, as you can see in my first quote the source is none other than James Lovelock himself. An easy google search will confirm his quotes. The second set of quotes was from Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt.

[dabize]

You really hate to get smacked with the truth don't you? I like you debate tactic though, guilt by association. Why don't you just deal with the topic at hand?

As for the "source" of my quotes, as you can see in my first quote the source is none other than James Lovelock himself. An easy google search will confirm his quotes. The second set of quotes was from Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt.

Has Lovelock gone that far off the rails? Hard to believe, even if Gaia is proving to be a tough mother.......

But he hasn't revoked the thermodynamic properties of atmospheric CO2, has he?

If so, can he do F orbitals too? I always hated them........

[A-L-E-K]

this is getting kind of sad

[dabize]

from my link above, because this is just too funny not to post:

Kind of like playing 6 degrees of separation between the profiteers and the trolls, only with aliphatic lubrication added..............

[TerryM]

also ben4vols smells like BethesdaBoy/physicsguy21

Amen

The tactic of repeating debunked data as opposed to responding to any of the replies while asking others to google his sources seems very familiar.

I'm sure that from time to time we're visited by someone who is relatively new to the topic who posts in an honest attempt to resolve questions. Roger may fall into this category, but Ben/Beth/physics does not.

The skeptical camp does itself no favors by ignoring these posts .When I first took an interest in the subject it was the obviously false claims going unopposed by the deniers that led me to reject out of hand other points, possibly having more merit, that they were trying to make.

It's probably unfair, but people are judged by the company they keep. Protecting or ignoring Ben/Beth/physics types leads others to assume that your own arguments are equally weak.

Terry

[WeatherRusty]

What Lovelock has backed away from was his own interpretation of where AGW would be by the end of the 21st century. He claimed a few years back that the human race would be reduced to a few breeding pairs residing in the arctic, an assertion not at all supported by the actual science. He has come to his senses and backed of that claim.

He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

[ben4vols]

from my link above, because this is just too funny not to post:

See you have to give Trix enough rope to hang himself/herself. They don't want to deal with issues, they wan't to deal in character assassination. Trixie hyperventilates and calls for banning me because the quote is from Vahrenholt (who I don't necessarily think highly of myself). Of course if you look past the messenger you see that both Latif and Marotzke do not back up what Trixie claims.

LINK TO ARTICLE

Mojib Latif: Nothing will be brushed aside. I have even predicted in 2008 that is not heating up to 2015. It lies on the fluctuation of ocean currents.

LINK TO ARTICLE

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

[TerryM]

Dabize

'aliphatic lubrication' Wow

Terry

[ben4vols]

Amen

The tactic of repeating debunked data as opposed to responding to any of the replies while asking others to google his sources seems very familiar.

Terry

Give me a friggin' break. Can we ban you/Trixie/dabize for trolling? That is mostly what you guys seem to contribute.

[ben4vols]

What Lovelock has backed away from was his own interpretation of where AGW would be by the end of the 21st century. He claimed a few years back that the human race would be reduced to a few breeding pairs residing in the arctic, an assertion not at all supported by the actual science. He has come to his senses and backed of that claim.

Lovelock goes much further than just stepping away from his alarmist idea's.

[ben4vols]

it should go without saying that Marotzke remains on the AGW side. why he's being used as an example is either trolling or massive ignorance.

No one is saying either source is or isn't on the side of AGW. I know they support AGW, but you start hyperventilating and trolling whenever someone mentions that the warming has stopped. AGW supporting scientists admit the warming has stopped.

[WeatherRusty]

When I stated that warming has apparently stalled out since 1998, this was characterized as both a "non-fact" and then a "lie."

Actually, it's an opinion that I believe is essentially accurate. The five-year segments that I used to illustrate this contention were:

1997-2001 .. +0.44

2002-2006 .. +0.55

2007-2011 .. +0.54

This is a much slower rate of increase than was seen from 1972 to 1996 where this five-year system can be extended back to include these data points:

1972-76 .. -0.03

1977-81 .. +0.14

1982-86 .. +0.11

1987-91 .. +0.30

1992-96 .. +0.23

1997-2001 .. +0.44

2002-06 .. +0.55

2007-11 .. +0.54

Now looking at rates of change, the first of these eight periods was just .02 colder than the period before (not in the table above). From then on, there are seven changes that average +.08 but this average increase was exceeded between steps 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 6-7. The rate of change was slightly negative or essentially zero in the other cases.

It is definitely true to say that the rate of change is essentially flat-line over the past ten years. My reading of the data was that a peak had been established in the 1997-98 El Nino and that said peak has not been meaningfully eclipsed by more recent years, granted there are three out of the succeeding thirteen years that very slightly exceeded 1998 or tied it, but there were ten that were not as warm.

If the data series were a topographic map and you were driving a car forward in time, the sensation would be that of climbing a series of hills separated by slight valleys, then reaching a plateau. This is my interpretation of the numbers and I am sure the statistical best fit for the past fifteen years would have only a very negligible slope, perhaps .01-.02 per decade at most. Given the overall variability of the numbers in the data set, this is flat-line rather than an increase (I think it's fair to ask for a slight variation around zero to have three classes, increase, flat-line and decrease, and I'm not asking for that variation to amount to the middle third of possibilities which, if you had to choose the most accurate term, might be a fair criterion to use).

Anyway, I am tempted to say, let's review this in 2030 but at my age, that's not all that certain a prospect, so I will leave it to those more likely to be alert at that point in time. And please note, I made no predictions based on the current flat-line assessment, I made predictions based on some theoretical assumptions and if I'm around in 2030 I will try to remember to revisit the discussion and give a post-mortem on those. What is the "official" prediction for 2030 and beyond? A few years ago, I got the impression it was a fairly large increase in the 2-4 C range. Has this been abandoned now?

.

You are presenting something we are all aware of. Compared to the warming rate of earlier decades, the past decade's rate of warming has slowed. Warming has continued at a slower rate.

As to your final point, never was the science indicating a 2-4C increase by 2030. What is expected is a rise in temperature averaging about 0.2C per decade. The 2-4C range refers to equilibrium climate sensitivity to a standard forcing for a doubling of CO2, in this instance from pre-industrial 280ppm to 560ppm. The doubling should have occurred by sometime this coming mid-century, but equilibrium will not occur for sever decades beyond then. So by late century we should expect the 2-4C increase over the temperature of the mid to late 19th century. That's if additional radiative forcing is only from a singe doubling of CO2.

We will likely blow right past 560ppm on a BAU trajectory. Also, this does not include the additional feedback of methane from any thawing arctic tundra and possible sea floor methane clathrate destabilization, so the potential is there for much more than 2-4C looking out many more decades and centuries into the future.

[dabize]

AGW supporting scientists admit the warming has stopped.

Bizzaro. Tell it to Foster and Ramsdorf(sp?)

How many times do you need to be told that this is now known to be categorically false?

Moreover, it simply can't be true - any more than you can keep yourself 6 feet above the ground for weeks at a time without physical support or mechanical help.

[dabize]

http://www.lecanardenchaine.fr/

[ben4vols]

you've been here a month? what do you know of what I do?

I've been posting for the past few weeks, but I've been reading this forum for a good while. Also I don't disagree that the warming will commence in the future but with a -PDO cycle setting in and a future -AMO pattern coming you may have to wait a few years before you get a resumption in your warming. However I haven't seen you admit that the warming has stopped even though plenty of AGW supporting scientists have. All I see is you trolling anyone who says that warming has stopped.

[WeatherRusty]

I've been posting for the past few weeks, but I've been reading this forum for a good while. Also I don't disagree that the warming will commence in the future but with a -PDO cycle setting in and a future -AMO pattern coming you may have to wait a few years before you get a resumption in your warming. However I haven't seen you admit that the warming has stopped even though plenty of AGW supporting scientists have. All I see is you trolling anyone who says that warming has stopped.

Question for you. In the GISS database every year of the 2000s was warmer than the 1990s average. From that fact, how can it be stated that global warming has stopped? In all honesty, to claim global warming has stropped given the evidence is ludicrous. Has warming slowed? Yes. Stopped? NO

[The_Global_Warmer]

The warming hasnt stopped.

I am very surprised Roger Smith would use 1998 as a starting point.

The tropics were wildly above normal. It was not that warm globally at that time.

If we havent warmed why hasnt ohc dropped?

Why are glaciers melting 10 to 20 times faster the last few years?

a super el nino today would smoke 1998 and 2010.

No one claiming it has stopped warming will talk about anything but temps from the late 90s to now.

How amazingly convenient and dishonest.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I've been posting for the past few wee

ks, but I've been reading this forum for a good while. Also I don't disagree that the warming will commence in the future but with a -PDO cycle setting in and a future -AMO pattern coming you may have to wait a few years before you get a resumption in your warming. However I haven't seen you admit that the warming has stopped even though plenty of AGW supporting scientists have. All I see is you trolling anyone who says that warming has stopped.

Oh?

How is ohc-700m last summer, fall, and this winter at record highs if that is the case?

How is ohc-2000m rising fast if the warming has stopped?

How is every year in the 2000s warmer than tge 90s if it hasnt warmed.

How is the arctic way above normal if it hasn't warmed?

why is the arctic ice in complete disarray if it hasn't warmed in 15 years?

how has Greenland Ice mass seen rapid ice mass loss during the last decade if it hasnt warmed?

how has NH snow cover declined faster and faster if it hasnt warmed?

Why a global ssts way above normal with solar min, ninas, -pdo, weak amo?

[WeatherRusty]

Where is the cooling?

SOURCE for graphics

[ben4vols]

who? names and links to their statements saying that global warming has totally stopped.

hopefully the staff gets rid of you quicker this time (although the electric sun stuff was good for some serious laughs).

Creating another strawman? Nobody said global warming has stopped. It was said by AGW scientists that warming stopped. Big difference.

I know you want me and others who question your religion gone. A sterile environment makes it much easier for you to peddle your mistruths. It is you who should be banned for trolling.

[WeatherRusty]

Creating another strawman? Nobody said global warming has stopped. It was said by AGW scientists that warming stopped. Big difference.

I know you want me and others who question your religion gone. A sterile environment makes it much easier for you to peddle your mistruths. It is you who should be banned for trolling.

I doubt that very seriously.

Where is the evidence to support a pause in global warming? No anecdotal evidence, real numbers please.

[ben4vols]

Why are glaciers melting 10 to 20 times faster the last few years?

Yeah I saw that a page back and left it alone but since you bring it up again, could it be that we are reaching the apex of the AMO? Why was there record ice in the Bering? Didn't have anything to do with the PDO did it?

[ben4vols]

I doubt that very seriously.

Where is the evidence to support a pause in global warming? No anecdotal evidence, real numbers please.

I provided you 3 scientist so far and 2 links last page. This is from the link on the last page.

Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: "I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn't gotten warmer in recent years."

They even go on to speak specifically of people like Trixie/dabize saying they are counterproductive for the movement.

Marotzke and Leibniz Institute meteorologist Mojib Latif are even convinced that the fuzzy computing done by Rahmstorf is counterproductive. "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations," says Latif. For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway.

[WeatherRusty]

I provided you 3 scientist so far and 2 links last page. This is from the link on the last page.

They even go on to speak specifically of people like Trixie/dabize saying they are counterproductive for the movement.

Of the two links you provided, one is written in German which I am a little 'Rusty' with these days, and the other is from 2009 which leaves out the warmest year on record in the NOAA/NASA databases and does not quote the scientist directly, but rather gives a 3rd party 'interpretation' of what was said.

Anyway how does the supposed opinion of those scientists jive with the graphics I posted above which are products of NASA GISS?

If I recall from past discussions, it has been pointed out that all four major temperature metrics -- RSS, UAH, GISS and HadCRUT -- all indicate continued warming, although at a reduced rate relative to previous decades.

So far as Trixie/dabize are concerned, blatant misrepresentation of data and information are not to be tolerated. It does not matter who the perpetrators may be either.

[dabize]

They even go on to speak specifically of people like Trixie/dabize saying they are counterproductive for the movement.

Hmm........I didn't know I was part of a movement, except possibly one in favor of applying the methods of science to scientific issues, such as AGW.

As for the authority of your scientists - my German is a bit rusty too. You made me think of one phrase that I still remember, though.

Scientists don't use the phrase "Habe gesprochen!" much any more (in any language), we try to persuade the persuadable with facts rather than authority.

However I'll say it to you...not because I'm such an expert, but because I'm about done with this discussion.

[Roger Smith]

I remain unconvinced that the warming between 1978 and 1997 was all generated by greenhouse gas increases. But if it was, it sets in motion the inevitable question, why did the rate of warming slow down in the past decade? Greenhouse gas levels are reportedly rising at the same rate, if not faster, so this requires that the theory be adjusted to account for interactions between greenhouse effect and natural variability. Yet this interaction is very poorly understood, if we take as our standard the only possible criterion, predictability. Until we get reliable predictions for years into the future, we just can't really say whether any of the theory is valid or not.

It makes me suspicious that the theory is not very well developed, whenever I read statements like "researchers believe the cooling in the years during and after the Second World War can be attributed to increased industrial activity" because this sounds like an effort to validate the anthropogenic paradigm for other periods besides the AGW period, which to me has almost no reliable scientific basis. The much more likely reason for the cooling would be natural variability.

We do not have the luxury of a control earth that could undergo natural variability without the added greenhouse gases, to determine what would have happened from 1940 to the present with no human population present. The variations that have actually occurred may well fit some AGW theory to some extent, but similar variations have happened in the past without humans present. I happened to read an article in a magazine entitled "The Skeptic" which takes climate skeptics (they call them deniers, I suppose in part since they don't want to confuse the validity of their chosen name for the publication). In that article, the claim was made that it was a false claim to suggest natural variability was the cause of the observed changes since 1940. However, there was no substantial reasoning presented to demonstrate how that is a false claim. They also stated that earlier warmings, the MWP and the Holocene, were not as dramatic as recent warming, and tried to pass them off as limited in regional scope. Yet this is known to be untrue, the MWP is generally thought to be about as strong as the recent warming, and certainly was known to be stronger in Greenland and eastern Canada. The Holocene warming is also known to be 1-2 deg warmer than even this past decade or two. The arbutus tree flourished in northwest Ireland in locations where it is unknown today. So, some of this "official debunking" of the climate-change-skeptic position is in itself contrived and not factual. I don't think we can have a fair debate or discussion if one side just defines itself to be right and then turns around and says, "see, you are wrong, because we have defined ourselves to be right."

Some of the debating points of the AGW lobby are perhaps better than others; the worst one is definitely the point that says all responsible scientists agree with the theory (because critics are defined to be irresponsible). That is a clear example of circular reasoning. Of course, science has seen this sort of exclusionary mentality before, for example, with glaciation and continental drift. Note that these were also earth science controversies. Hmm. Another weak argument that I noted in the article was that, without greenhouse gases, we were due to rush towards a glacial episode within a thousand years (because of Milankovitch cycle factors) -- but on the contrary, we are in a rather weak variability phase of these orbital factors and it would be more like ten to twenty thousand years before the next glacial was due. To be frank, I would have to ask AGW proponents, what exactly will be gained by moving back to a timetable that ensures a glacial episode in the near future? This would be far worse in social terms than even the worst impacts theorized under AGW. This would become apparent a long time before the glaciers pushed south into highly populated parts of Europe and North America, the climate shifts before that would be massive and presumably very harmful to our economies. It would seem valid to consider that the interplay between greenhouse effect and natural variability might actually be playing out in our favour. If the warming effects are as strong as the higher end of predictions, and natural cooling is similar to the Dalton minimum, then the outcome might actually be a steady-state climate (one would guess that it might be of higher variability than other near-average decades).

However, in social-political terms, the outcome of this situation will depend on what actually happens to the temperature trend over 20-40 years. If it continues to become more stable or if it unexpectedly starts to drop, then the AGW theory will have to be revised -- at some point there will be no way to sustain its major flaw, a lack of predictive ability. I don't claim absolute knowledge of this outcome. It is possible that the AGW theory is essentially correct and that warming will continue at rates that more or less validate the theory. For me, that will have to take this GISS index into the +1.0 to +1.5 range eventually, if it stays below that for most of the century, but above +0.6, then we will probably have a stalemate, and if it falls back, then we will see a strong push for a revised theory that favours natural variability factors.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Mr. Smith,

With all due respect, you have ignored everything but the Giss temperature record in this thread and kind of mis represented that as well.

I have a question, the last two summers We have seen Greenland lose 500 to 600 billion gigatons of ice each year.

This is way higher than the previous 10 year average and epically higher than before that.

Other glaciers are showing a similar rapid increase in ice loss.

I know you have ignored ohc in this thread. But we might have missed the boat on where the added heat is going and for what use VS how much it will warm the surface.

[ben4vols]

I have a question, the last two summers We have seen Greenland lose 500 to 600 billion gigatons of ice each year.

This is way higher than the previous 10 year average and epically higher than before that.

This isn't all that unusual when you consider we are in the middle of the +AMO cycle and the AMO has shown to have a direct relationship to temps in Greenland. The warming rate in the 1930's was on par with today if not greater and shockingly enough they were in the middle of a +AMO regime. Yes there was glacier melt as well.