2011 Global Temperatures

[WeatherRusty]

... and after that wonderful post Rusty, I still must ask where is the warming?? I see the latest IPCC report will discuss natural variability taking over for 30 years or so. When did that epiphany occur Rusty? I thought CO2 warming was monolithic and would crush all other forcings like a Terminator. Every time I read a report nowadays, I keep getting the sense that people are backing away from the incessant warming mantra. I just hope I'm not caught being too warm at some point and be accused of alarmism.

Natural variability always has and always will play a part in the oscillatory nature of global temperature, both short term and longer term. There is no revelation there. However, the background warming induced by additional externally forced radiation due to the build up of greenhouse gases will continue on just as it has over the past 150 years. CO2's warming influence in isolation will follow the rate of atmospheric build up so in that sense it is monotonic. In the real world of internal variability the warming rate has and will continue to vary. There is no revelation there.

There is no backing away from the dictates of modern physics. There has been no change or further adjustment to the expectation of 2C to 4.5C total temperature response at equilibrium to any forcing the equal to that of a doubling of CO2.

Where is the warming? The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest ten year period on record. A couple years ago the oceans were the warmest on record. This past October 2011, the northern hemisphere land mass was the warmest on record. Night time lows are rising much more quickly than daytime highs. Arctic sea ice loss is progressing at increasing rates. Ice mass loss over Antarctica and Greenland has accelerated. Ah, but I know.....all that depends on who you listen to...right?

[Hambone]

What Rusty said. These climate changes depicted took many hundreds/thousands of years to occur and were caused by fairly well understood mechanisms, namely changes in orbital parameters and axial tilt + net positive internal feedbacks (CO2 and H2O).

Changes in orbital parameters are not relevant to our current situation and do not operate on the same timescale as our present warming situation.

And above all else, even if we knew nothing else, the physics of CO2 still dictates warming.

26

Dec

German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”

Posted by John O'Sullivan | (391) CommentFor any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.

Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

The paper’s introduction states it neatly:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (

there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, © the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.

[Sunny and Warm]

Where is the warming? The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest ten year period on record. A couple years ago the oceans were the warmest on record. This past October 2011, the northern hemisphere land mass was the warmest on record. Night time lows are rising much more quickly than daytime highs. Arctic sea ice loss is progressing at increasing rates. Ice mass loss over Antarctica and Greenland has accelerated. Ah, but I know.....all that depends on who you listen to...right?

correct Rusty. It does entirely depend on who you believe. You and I differ on who and what we choose to believe, so will never agree on AGW.

[Mencken_Fan]

Never mind. I know which way is up....I'm a scientist.

My bias is in favor of stuff which is absolutely nailed down....like Arrhenius ' demonstration of the physical properties of CO2.

I question plausible assumptions more than most do in my field (Alzheimer's research), but I don't go around disputing

things like the existence of S ands P orbitals, using bad faith arguments to advance my view by sowing confusion.

I respect the process.

You don't.

Your posts are not those of an honest skeptic.

You are (apparently) politically motivated, or if not that, firmly committed to your position

by something other than logical sequence, and I won't waste my time trying to reach you.

I don't expect you to see me as anything but an enemy.

There are plenty of others worth conversing with, though.

In my field, I've seen plenty of people be honestly wrong by assuming the crowd was right.

But I don't see many of you.

Thankfully.

Re: your reply to "sunnyandwarm"

What a breath of fresh air! You are a classic example of the difference between "knowledge" and "intelligence." While many have the former, few have the latter.

[LakeEffectKing]

Re: your reply to "sunnyandwarm"

What a breath of fresh air! You are a classic example of the difference between "knowledge" and "intelligence." While many have the former, few have the latter.

Qualifying differing viewpoints on the AGW hypothesis as a litmus test of intelligence is what is helping to create the backlash the climate "experts" and their followers are experiencing. As I've mentioned before, I was a true believer throughout college, (which in your eyes would have qualified me as intelligent) but the way I saw responses to some of my "questions" at that time (very elitist in nature) was the catalyst of my overall skepticism. To which now, (via your characterization) I would be "non-intelligent".

Debate degrades when those type of unrelated statements become involved. They have zero value.

[ORH_wxman]

Qualifying differing viewpoints on the AGW hypothesis as a litmus test of intelligence is what is helping to create the backlash the climate "experts" and their followers are experiencing. As I've mentioned before, I was a true believer throughout college, (which in your eyes would have qualified me as intelligent) but the way I saw responses to some of my "questions" at that time (very elitist in nature) was the catalyst of my overall skepticism. To which now, (via your characterization) I would be "non-intelligent".

Debate degrades when those type of unrelated statements become involved. They have zero value.

Calling anyone who is skeptical a "denier" has been a childish and embarrassing anecdote for the science. This seems to be one of the few topics in science where skepticism of any kind is treated with a nasty backlash and it is almost certainly politics related. In normal science, skepticism helps advance the field.

Lumping someone who questions whether we will get 3C of warming by 2100 to the extreme minority who think the earth hasn't warmed in the past century is pretty unproductive.

[Mencken_Fan]

Qualifying differing viewpoints on the AGW hypothesis as a litmus test of intelligence is what is helping to create the backlash the climate "experts" and their followers are experiencing. As I've mentioned before, I was a true believer throughout college, (which in your eyes would have qualified me as intelligent) but the way I saw responses to some of my "questions" at that time (very elitist in nature) was the catalyst of my overall skepticism. To which now, (via your characterization) I would be "non-intelligent".

Debate degrades when those type of unrelated statements become involved. They have zero value.

I disagree.

Knowledge is available to anyone who seeks it....but intelligence? Intelligence comes from a combination of genetics and life-long mental exercise.

Myself, I will claim intelligence.

Genetics:

My father, born in 1923, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and George Washington University with degrees in engineering and law. His father, born in the 1890s was successful in business and law (and also once held a high government position), passed away in 1970 a multi-millionaire. His father....was the first lawyer from the state of Utah (graduated from the University of Chicago.)

While law is the common modern thread...my direct tree goes back many centuries and the pre-law pattern shifts to science and history; where my namesakes wrote notable books in the 1700s and 1600s.

My mother grew up in a chateaux with 360 acres in Normandy, France (occupied by the Germans in WWII) and was educated in Switzerland.

The family genes are generally positive.

As for "mental exercise"; I've been an avid reader since the late 1950s. My first subscription to the New York Times was in 1964. I know more authors than most here know video games (video games are cool, but it helps to know more than that.)

Knowledge is accumulation...whether one year, ten years, or fifty years..it's still just "accumulation." Intelligence is the slowly gained ability to discern the relative value of knowledge. Intelligence is sort of like a combination of knowledge with an innate expertise in psychology.

People who "know" can spot those who don't.

[LakeEffectKing]

I disagree.

Knowledge is available to anyone who seeks it....but intelligence? Intelligence comes from a combination of genetics and life-long mental exercise.

Myself, I will claim intelligence.

Genetics:

My father, born in 1923, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and George Washington University with degrees in engineering and law. His father, born in the 1890s was successful in business and law (and also once held a high government position), passed away in 1970 a multi-millionaire. His father....was the first lawyer from the state of Utah (graduated from the University of Chicago.)

While law is the common modern thread...my direct tree goes back many centuries and the pre-law pattern shifts to science and history; where my namesakes wrote notable books in the 1700s and 1600s.

My mother grew up in a chateaux with 360 acres in Normandy, France (occupied by the Germans in WWII) and was educated in Switzerland.

The family genes are generally positive.

As for "mental exercise"; I've been an avid reader since the late 1950s. My first subscription to the New York Times was in 1964. I know more authors than most here know video games (video games are cool, but it helps to know more than that.)

Knowledge is accumulation...whether one year, ten years, or fifty years..it's still just "accumulation." Intelligence is the slowly gained ability to discern the relative value of knowledge. Intelligence is sort of like a combination of knowledge with an innate expertise in psychology.

People who "know" can spot those who don't.

Very humble read....thanks for that.

[WeatherRusty]

correct Rusty. It does entirely depend on who you believe. You and I differ on who and what we choose to believe, so will never agree on AGW.

I don't apologize for learning from and trusting science endorsed by scientific organizations such as NASA, NOAA, AMS, AGS and NAS and most any academic institution etc. etc.

From whom do you learn your science? Anthony Watts?

[Sunny and Warm]

Very humble read....thanks for that.

Too bad good genes tend to skip the occasional generation. Since I lack intelligence, I must assume that my knowledge of such things allowed for the deduction to be made that this may have occurred in the instance of Mencken Man.

[WeatherRusty]

26

Dec

German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”

Posted by John O'Sullivan | (391) Comment For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.

Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

The paper’s introduction states it neatly:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (

there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, © the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.

I wouldn't want that post associated with my name. Just a terrible misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works.

[Sunny and Warm]

I don't apologize for learning from and trusting science endorsed by scientific organizations such as NASA, NOAA, AMS, AGS and NAS and most any academic institution etc. etc.

From whom do you learn your science? Anthony Watts?

Rusty,

You should never apologize for your beliefs, however wayward they be.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

26

Dec

German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”

Posted by John O'Sullivan | (391) CommentFor any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.

Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

The paper’s introduction states it neatly:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (

there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, © the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.

Interesting article. This certainly puts a different spin on things.

[LakeEffectKing]

I don't apologize for learning from and trusting science endorsed by scientific organizations such as NASA, NOAA, AMS, AGS and NAS and most any academic institution etc. etc.

From whom do you learn your science? Anthony Watts?

Rusty, skepticism doesn't mean we LEARN from others (different from "your" sources)....it means we interpret THE SAME observations and the derived conclusions differently. Data collection and observations is/are inherently subject to interpretation, and unfortunately, it often times does not weed out biases during the interpreting phase....but that's ok, because the Sci. method in it's entirety screens out the bias via the testing of the data. This process repeats itself as new data/observations are received. At every phase, parts of a hypothesis may be supported or falsified as a result of the tests. The accumulation of supportive results of these repeated tests can strengthen a hypothesis enough to draw conclusions. There is no shortcut.

And if one has the time, one can confidently entertain various opinions/hypotheses from ANYONE, as long as one implements the Sci Method as scripted. It is the MAIN reason it was developed....it, by far, is the most important "Rule" of science that has ever been developed, leading to the rapid advancement in science. And, one by one (carrying the Sci method to it's end) each and every hypothesis/opinion (that is well crafted for testability) can be falsified or supported.

There are (as I've stated numerous times) so many ambiguities in the AGW hypothesis, that would lead one to believe it was crafted, not for the advancement of science, but to masquerade it as such.

[Sunny and Warm]

Rusty, skepticism doesn't mean we LEARN from others (different from "your" sources)....it means we interpret THE SAME observations and the derived conclusions differently. Data collection and observations is/are inherently subject to interpretation, and unfortunately, it often times does not weed out biases during the interpreting phase....but that's ok, because the Sci. method in it's entirety screens out the bias via the testing of the data. This process repeats itself as new data/observations are received. At every phase, parts of a hypothesis may be supported or falsified as a result of the tests. The accumulation of supportive results of these repeated tests can strengthen a hypothesis enough to draw conclusions. There is no shortcut.

And if one has the time, one can confidently entertain various opinions/hypotheses from ANYONE, as long as one implements the Sci Method as scripted. It is the MAIN reason it was developed....it, by far, is the most important "Rule" of science that has ever been developed, leading to the rapid advancement in science. And, one by one (carrying the Sci method to it's end) each and every hypothesis/opinion (that is well crafted for testability) can be falsified or supported.

There are (as I've stated numerous times) so many ambiguities in the AGW hypothesis, that would lead one to believe it was crafted, not for the advancement of science, but to masquerade it as such.

Great post. The missing link in AGW is the exclusion of the scientific method from climate science. Rusty would do well to rail against the scientists who are failing at the fundamentals of science. Every paper you see nowadays is simply, "look what I found that supports AGW. Please send more money". Rusty laments that no one believes in science anymore and that it has become political, but I must remind him that his crowd made it political and not scientific. I am often accused of taking my position due to my politics, but in actuality, it is the politics of climate science that is turning me off to AGW. Interesting how that works.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Rusty,

You should never apologize for your beliefs, however wayward they be.

How is GISS a laughable data set?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Interesting article. This certainly puts a different spin on things.

Which parts do you find interesting in comparison to the currently accepted physics?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Calling anyone who is skeptical a "denier" has been a childish and embarrassing anecdote for the science. This seems to be one of the few topics in science where skepticism of any kind is treated with a nasty backlash and it is almost certainly politics related. In normal science, skepticism helps advance the field.

Lumping someone who questions whether we will get 3C of warming by 2100 to the extreme minority who think the earth hasn't warmed in the past century is pretty unproductive.

There is nothing wrongwiththat. We should always treat something like 3c of warming in a century with skeptism.

What is unproductive is when sunnyandwarm says Giss is a laughable dataset. With no explanation, that is trolling.

He has been asked 5 times to explain himself abd wont but continues to post in this thread.

the comment Is ironic because this past summerhe stated multiple times that the warm arctic waters th at used to be covered in ice were irrelevent. Yet its the main reason gissis so much warmer than the satelittes. Now he says giss is laughable.

That is not skeptism.

[skierinvermont]

I wouldn't want that post associated with my name. Just a terrible misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works.

Agree. It's really sad watching certain posters buy such complete nonsense.

[TerryM]

Interesting that NO ONE has addressed the paper Dabize introduced us to.

When extreme weather events are regularly occurring more than three standard deviations from the norm something is horribly wrong. If AGW is not the explanation, what pray tell is?

Any that are claiming to be skeptics, as opposed to deniers need an alternative theory to refute these statistical anomalies. Deniers need to be outed as the trolls or imbeciles that they are.

By way of reference those 2.5 deviations below average in intelligence spend their lives learning to tie their shoes, those 2.5 deviations above may join Mensa.

BTW after 20+ years in Mensa I've come to believe that Intelligence without Knowledge is as dangerous as the inverse.

Terry

[Sunny and Warm]

Interesting that NO ONE has addressed the paper Dabize introduced us to.

When extreme weather events are regularly occurring more than three standard deviations from the norm something is horribly wrong. If AGW is not the explanation, what pray tell is?

Any that are claiming to be skeptics, as opposed to deniers need an alternative theory to refute these statistical anomalies. Deniers need to be outed as the trolls or imbeciles that they are.

By way of reference those 2.5 deviations below average in intelligence spend their lives learning to tie their shoes, those 2.5 deviations above may join Mensa.

BTW after 20+ years in Mensa I've come to believe that Intelligence without Knowledge is as dangerous as the inverse.

Terry

Another supposed Mensa poster. Amazing...

[Strongbad]

Another supposed Mensa poster. Amazing...

The Mensa posters are just funny to read. Anybody who needs to share that information as a way of boasting might be covering something up...

What really strikes me is the post by that guy, Mencken (sp?). To bring up "good genes" when discussing his family history is akin to the eugenicist crowd of the Romantic era. We know what that led to...

Really, that is what will keep people from favoring the warmists. Anyone who dares speak of superior genetics is asking for it.

[WeatherRusty]

Interesting that NO ONE has addressed the paper Dabize introduced us to.

When extreme weather events are regularly occurring more than three standard deviations from the norm something is horribly wrong. If AGW is not the explanation, what pray tell is?

Any that are claiming to be skeptics, as opposed to deniers need an alternative theory to refute these statistical anomalies. Deniers need to be outed as the trolls or imbeciles that they are.

By way of reference those 2.5 deviations below average in intelligence spend their lives learning to tie their shoes, those 2.5 deviations above may join Mensa.

BTW after 20+ years in Mensa I've come to believe that Intelligence without Knowledge is as dangerous as the inverse.

Terry

They would rather lecture me on the supposed failings of AGW science as if they are my daddy.

[WeatherRusty]

The Mensa posters are just funny to read. Anybody who needs to share that information as a way of boasting might be covering something up...

What really strikes me is the post by that guy, Mencken (sp?). To bring up "good genes" when discussing his family history is akin to the eugenicist crowd of the Romantic era. We know what that led to...

Really, that is what will keep people from favoring the warmists. Anyone who dares speak of superior genetics is asking for it.

News flash: The world of academia does favor the "warmists", and by a long shot. You lose with the "elitist" academics but win sufficiently with the general population to meet your goals.

So you don't think genetics tilts the scales in favor of intelligence? Predisposition? Another denial of science.

[LocoAko]

I wouldn't want that post associated with my name. Just a terrible misunderstanding of how the greenhouse effect works.

Seriously.

First and foremost... no university classes in climatology exist? Wtf? Even the undergraduates here at Rutgers take a Climate Dynamics course.

And at not "appealing to authority" but then mentioning how big and supposedly 'complicated' this paper is, with all of its big equations and data tables. Ha.

[Sundog]

Seriously.

First and foremost... no university classes in climatology exist? Wtf? Even the undergraduates here at Rutgers take a Climate Dynamics course.

And at not "appealing to authority" but then mentioning how big and supposedly 'complicated' this paper is, with all of its big equations and data tables. Ha.

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard and easily debunked almost instantly.

[Sunny and Warm]

They would rather lecture me on the supposed failings of AGW science as if they are my daddy.

who has ever lectured you as if they were your daddy Rusty? Don't stoop so low or you'll hurt your back. You're about the only respectible AGW poster on here, and this is what you post?

[Sunny and Warm]

News flash: The world of academia does favor the "warmists", and by a long shot. You lose with the "elitist" academics but win sufficiently with the general population to meet your goals.

So you don't think genetics tilts the scales in favor of intelligence? Predisposition? Another denial of science.

Your supposition is unsupportable Rusty, and in fact is likely backwards. There are good and bad eggs and sperm (think quality), and that is the luck of the draw each time. However, an intelligent woman may be able to stack the deck during pregnancy somewhat by the environment she imparts to the embryo (think taking care of herself). After the baby is born, environment from the mother and father is deeply important to what happens with the raw material inside the child's brain (think instruction, nurturing, education). So, I tend to believe that intelligence predisposes the production of an above average person given that the genetics are not unfavorable.

Genetics tilts the scale on many things, but it is not the end all, be all of what makes a person. There are other, more important factors involved. Stick to climate science.

[WeatherRusty]

who has ever lectured you as if they were your daddy Rusty? Don't stoop so low or you'll hurt your back. You're about the only respectible AGW poster on here, and this is what you post?

It becomes irritating to constantly be told that the scientific method is not being adhered to or that AGW science is based in politics when neither of those claims hold any water. Certain aspects of the science are speculative as is the case in most any study of complex systems, but most of the science is rooted in well defined and well established physical concepts. The need to mitigate the situation enters the realm of politics, but that is another matter which should be held distinct from the underlying science. You skeptics merge the two and rail against the latter in order to oppose the former.

[WeatherRusty]

Your supposition is unsupportable Rusty, and in fact is likely backwards. There are good and bad eggs and sperm (think quality), and that is the luck of the draw each time. However, an intelligent woman may be able to stack the deck during pregnancy somewhat by the environment she imparts to the embryo (think taking care of herself). After the baby is born, environment from the mother and father is deeply important to what happens with the raw material inside the child's brain (think instruction, nurturing, education). So, I tend to believe that intelligence predisposes the production of an above average person given that the genetics are not unfavorable.

Genetics tilts the scale on many things, but it is not the end all, be all of what makes a person. There are other, more important factors involved. Stick to climate science.

The issue is not black and white. It is not a case of either-or, nature or nurture, and I did not say genetic makeup is the end all, be all.

Genes predispose and define what is possible. Nurture refines and hones that potential.

There you go lecturing me again as if you feel you are superior.