The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers - by David Kirtley

Thanks, Greg!

It is just the same with mobile phones and cancer. In this country, one textbook ("Approved" by the examining board) uses this as an example of "Controversy in Science". It gives the case for phones causing cancer completely unjustified prominence.

Now this is a recent phenomenon. Research into the origins of the "scare" is easy. First look for references to the original paper published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, journal that started it (even Wakefield had that). A search of the Internet shows nothing. Maybe there was some anecdotal evidence, maybe the trends in cancer cases showed something. Again nothing. What you find is an endless circle of references citing newspaper reports or just people citing each other.

Researching something that did not happen in the 1970's is much more difficult. Too recent to be history and too old to be current affairs. Sufficently long ago not to be able to remember not hearing about it.

I had some insight into scientific consensus back then. That was back when I thought I was going to be a planetary scientist, and was studying a fair amount of atmospheric physics and chemistry at Caltech.

As I remember it (it's been a while),there was a lot of uncertainty about what clouds and particulates would do, because clouds are hard to model, and particulants are hard to measure globally. We did have nice, smooth CO2 from Mauna Loa, and had a pretty good idea where that was headed. We were also well aware that we were in the middle of an interglacial, and that all else being equal, we were due for another glaciation soon. (Well, "soon" in a geological sense.) putting all of this together, I would say that most people I knew back then thought the atmosphere would most likely heat up in the near term. If I had had to make a guess, it would not have been too far off from what has been observed since. (Meaning like within a factor of two or something.)

What a clueless piece of fake design. Time magazine looked nothing like this in the 1970s and anyone with a few years behind them should know it.

Imbrie and Imbrie have a nice graph at the end of their book expressing I liar thoughts, CBS

Great post! Another way to fact check this is to compare Google Scholar searches on "global cooling" vs. "global warming" each in quotes to match the exact phrase, for specified date ranges. Every decade there are lots more hits for warming than for cooling.
BTW can you fix the spelling of Spencer Weart? You're missing the 'a'.

And the fool who thought this was a convincing fraud also left in the top left hand corner an actually headline from a `1977 story on 'Cancer: the changing science". Seems the idiot will accept that idiot will accept that science changes as more information comes to hand, but not when it offends his pre-determined ideology.

Time magazine 1974-

Another Ice Age?
Monday, June 24, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection....

The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age...

When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. ..

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world...

I made this in response to a Time Magazine Cover Parade some time ago, still makes me laugh :)

Not that long ago, we were very rightly concerned about polluting our environment, filling the air and the water and the soil with toxic by-products of our industrial activities. It was very easy to say when any of these natural resources was contaminated, and almost as easy to determine exactly where the source of contamination was occurring. Somehow, in the early 1990s, those who contaminate our planet for their own greedy means commandeered the discussion about pollution and changed the focus to climate change. I realize that one of the outcomes of pollution is climate change, and it is a hugely destructive and apocalyptic outcome, but it also a longer term outcome, more difficult to prove on a case by case basis, and fraught with many challenges to accurately document so that the general public can easily comprehend the immediate problem. Added to that, the naysayers do have, in their favor, several millions of years of natural climate change data they use to undermine public confidence in current scientific predictions.

Climate change is an issue because we pollute the environment . We can easily prove that industry practices pollutes the environment. Why have we allowed the argument of contaminating this planet to be hijacked by the monsters who are ruining our air and water and soil? By focussing on climate change, vast amounts of scientific energy and goodwill is expended on proving and 'reproving' the value of the date and the models, meanwhile, the pollution of the planet continues essentially unchanged. There was a time when activists confronted individual polluters at individual sites and got action. Now, with the attention on climate change and not on specific rivers, or landfills or air sheds, the targets are amorphous, the cause and effect not so clear. . It makes one wonder who exactly is benefitting from all the climate change summits, the earth or the polluters?

Peter, what?

I'd like to add to this the little point that I first heard about the threat of global warming when the science around it was used in a sci-fi story about a future earth, a major part of the history of which was the catastrophe that befell the earth in the 21st century due to warming from pollutants. I don't think that story was unique either. That would have been about 1975. I told my mother about it, and that she shouldn't buy aerosols or use her car so much, and she told me I was being silly. And I do remember some articles and things speculating about if an ice age might come again soon, but they were always very speculative, and not a part of the news, or any serious focus of concern, and existed alongside other such stuff,as we still, quite reasonably, have today, such as whether we could become capable of intergalactic travel. An important thing to bear in mind here too, is how younger people of course don't remember times before they were born, and actually can end up believing that things were very different to what they were, thus making them open to this kind of disinformation.

Thanks for the comments.

I second Greg's comment to Peter: What?

Daughter # 3 and Simon: I noticed how the fake-skeptic cover used the design of the real cover. They kept the same "cancer" headline but changed the woman in the photo. (I'm not sure who these two women are. Cancer survivors?) The middle headline about Baghdad got changed to one about detente with the Soviets. And the last one about the tv show The Sopranos was changed to M.A.S.H. Pretty clever, but Daughter # 3 is right, that isn't the design used in the 1970s.

I was curious about what date is on the fake cover. I think it says April but the resolution isn't too good and I can't read it. (Anyone know how to clean it up??) I wonder if the fake-skeptics just kept the date that was on the real 2007 cover (April 9) or if they changed it to an accurate date of a real 1977 cover (which would have been April 4,11,18, or 25).

Jim: sorry about Weart's name. I fixed it in my original google doc. Maybe Greg can fix it here.

Fixed

Oh, I see.. peter has a link in his post, cleverly embedded with HTML so I did not see it:
http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2489/scienceformul600px.jpg

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

So now Time is right but was wrong then?

Have cake and eat it?

Oops forgot about awaiting moderation/disappearance practiced of this blog.
Guess I'll have to rely on screencaps.

Whoah. The Climate Deniers really don't have any shame at all do they? Did they rally, honestly , think they'd get away with that?

I think maybe the genesis of the myth of global cooling is a conflation of "nuclear winter" and the fever dreams of conservatives who hate science. Nuclear winter was supposed to happen when great clouds of dust were kicked up by a few thousands nukes going off. Like that'd be the thing you worry most about in that situation!

It isn't really the case that concern over global cooling was a myth. There was concern. The part about it being a myth is that this concern has been reconstructed as equally valid in comparison to understanding of climate science 40 or so years later, that mention of ice ages 50 years ago means that climate science has always been confused, and as is documented in this excellent bit of research (blog post above) 1970s cooling is mythologized further by fabricating phony evidence making it look like a bigger deal than it was.

But yes, I think the nuclear winter fed into this idea then, and conservative hatred and fear of science had fed into it in more recent decades as a valid point of concern has been turned into a Fox News style lie.

There is one thing missing from this story that I would really like to know. Were you ever able to discover who was responsible for producing this forged Time cover? So much of the output of the right is out and out lying disguised as serious commentary (their entire response to the climate issue is a perfect example) that I think it is important to track down, if we can, who is behind the lies.

Green Eagle, Bryan Walsh at TIME mag

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-…

traced the cover back to April 2012 at this site:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/time-cover-fake-1970s…

which is an Intelligent Design site (!) They acknowledge that the cover is a fake, and in the comments it seems like the cover appeared in a previous post which was then deleted.
You'll notice that on the image there is a web-address: ExtraordinaryIntelligence.com. I looked around on this weird, new-age site run by someone named Natalina and found this from May 2011:

http://extraordinaryintelligence.com/4633/extraordinary-intelligence-co…

It's about crazy weather. Anyway, at the bottom of the piece is this note: "****This article previously contained an image of a Time magazine cover predicting a coming Ice Age. It was brought to our attention that the image was photoshopped… so we’ve removed it."

In the comments section we learn that in June 2012 a reader (Will S,) showed Natalina that the image was a fake. Will S. said, "But faked covers like the one on the left don’t do our side, i.e. the side of skeptics of CAGW (‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’) any favours; we should instead point to actual words, properly sourced and documented, and show when and where they actually promoted the opposite hysteria, to that which they promote today."

I don't know where the faked image goes from there. I guess I could contact Natalina and the Intelligent Design site but this is about as far down the rabbit hole I want to go.

I took courses in meterology and climatology around 1956-57. Because we know so little then, compared to what is known now, I am very careful not to present my self as any sort of expert on the matter. I've seen some comments on the short doubling times of scientific knowledge. From 1957 to 2013 is some 55 years. If doubling time for climate knowledge has been a leisurely five years, that is is 11 doublings. 1-2-4-8-16-32-64-126-258-516-1038-2076. No doubt the increase in climate knowledge over 55 years has been a lot, whatever the real number is.

It's a shame that the US Academy of Science's 1975 report "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" is yet to make it into digital format and made available online. Commissioned in response to the media fuss about 'imminent global cooling, it made clear that understanding of climate was insufficient to make any such predictions - from it's foreword -

“…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…“.

The NAS - and every leading science body - failed to confirm global cooling as a danger that requires urgent and global action, but what it did do was set in train some focused scientific efforts to build that foundation of understanding of how the climate system. When that was built the results have been considered more than solid enough that the NAS - and every peak science body - does urge global action.

In last paragraph, make that "foundation of how the climate system WORKS."

The planet is getting cooler. At least the polar bears are happy now.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/427980/Global-warming-No-the-planet…

"But why fake the 1977 cover? "
It was faked by someone (a believer in global warming) who wanted to pwn the skeptics. He succeeded.

Not gullibe at #40...you got any *proof* of that, or is that just a personal opinion, borne of delusions?

Check it out:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/the-danger-of-hanging-your-hat-on-n…

That would be funny, Mr. Gullible, but I don't think so!

I like the way one photoshop job trumps two real Time covers here:

http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TimeMagCoolingCovers.jpg

My previous comment doesn't deserve publishing, I see you did address three Time covers that weren't faked, but apparently have been taken out of context. When you say:

"Fake-skeptics read these stories and only focus on the Coming Ice Age angle, and they enlarge the importance of those scientists who focused on that angle."

Realize that the first of your lists from Popular Technology strikes a very balanced tone:

"While a silent majority of the scientific community may have been more skeptical, you ironically find one of the most outspoken supporters of modern day Al Gore style global warming alarmism was promoting global cooling in the 1970s, the late Dr. Steven Schneider."

A lot of irony there, and if 97% of active publishers on climate change are in agreement, that makes me more skeptical about the environment in that community. You really think if you took all the scientific minds who were actively looking at the data, the minority opinion would only amount to 3%? The publishing community on climate changed is an old boys network, a closed society keeping out the minorities much like they used to do in country clubs.

Note, MikeC, that Time is not now and never was a journal of science. The fact that they had one, or two, or a handful, of articles about cooling, does not mean anything in terms of today's science.

MikeCornelison.com:

You really think if you took all the scientific minds who were actively looking at the data, the minority opinion would only amount to 3%?

Do you think you can tell who has a "scientific mind" and who doesn't? What does "actively looking at the data" mean to you? What do you think is required, to understand climate science well enough to be an expert? Does in-depth knowledge of the subject make a difference? How do you think that kind of knowledge is acquired?

The publishing community on climate changed is an old boys network, a closed society keeping out the minorities much like they used to do in country clubs.

Why do you think that? Have you ever submitted a scientific article for publication? Have you ever presented a paper at a scientific conference?

Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

It's 60 degrees below zero in certain parts of the United
States today.

and the top grossing film in the nation involves eternal winter....

If global warming was a fact, every scientist would agree. Not every scientist agrees. Why was it changed from global warming to climate change? Doesn't the climate always change? Isn't there only temp records dating back to 1880's? Going off 135 years of data?

Panther, it was not "changed from global warming to climate change." Both terms mean something, one is inclusive of the other, people tend to go back and forth. There are conspiracy theories and I've seen people argue over the history of the terms ... it turns out to be a bit complicated ... but using the fact that there are two words for one thing is poor evidence for the science at issue.

If every single scientist, or any other group of people, fully agreed on the same thing that would be strange. There are scientists, a very small number, who disagree with almost every other scientist on almost every thing scientists have come to generally agree on.

Your own side of this fake argument, the denialists, claim that consensus is not argument (and that is correct depending on what one means by argument) so it is funny to see you using consensus as data. But the truth is that if the vast majority of scientists in a given field come to thing the same thing is likely true, or accurate, or actually happened, etc. etc. within that scientific field, than that is a good clue that that thing is for real, especially when it is something that has been given very careful consideration and that has been addressed, argued about, fought over, etc. in the peer reviewed literature, at conferences, and in other venues for years.

So, what is the consensus regarding climate change? Here is a close look at the issue of consensus about climate change and/or global warming

you people can't even accurately predict tomorrows weather. Go to the highest peaks and the lowest depths and judge (be honest) your significance on this planet.....you have little to no impact on this place.....a bit grandiose to think you, little ol you has that much influence on this planet....get real...& you people cal the "deniers" crazy....mirror time

you warmers create diversions...you probably photoshopped the cover for just that purpose: see this site & learn:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarm…

I think I have finally figured out how to deal with anomalies, and graphs which show a zero or slightly negative slope of the anomalies do not necessarily show a stable global temperature. Since the anomalies are calculated vs. an average of previous years, if the temperature continues to increase at the average rate the anomaly curve will be zero. Right? Have I decoded the anomaly correctly?

So many comments filled with ignorance. 1978 was the year climate "scientists" predicted the glaciers would cover the USA down to kansas city.

Widely reported in all the magazines and especially omni.

More alarmist religion from the truly ignorant.

I just watched on you tube an episode of the old in search of series called the coming ice age. Leonard Nimoy talks about climate scientists worried about global cooling.

Here is a small list of articles on global cooling/coming ice age that were published in the 1970s. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the facts...

The American Meteorological Society has a very useful paper on the myth of a consensus in the '70s that global cooling was imminent:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

It shows that, by far, most scientific papers published during the period predicted warming.

Of course the story was an artifact of (some) of the public media, not the general opinion of scientists studying the climate. "Skeptics" clinging to this old story just show how impoverished their whole argument is.

As we are hit with freezing weather , all I remember is the Time magazine cover of the ice age coming from the '70's but the people who predicted that are now politically involved with the left and their dopey global warming. So I pulled it up and found this, the Ice Age was made up by Time and their writers in the '70's. I bet in another 40 years the Global warming articles will be fiction as well. One nice thing about aging is watching all this and knowing the truth !

Let's all get together and smear opponents by equating them to holocaust deniers. Then lets change the term "global warming" to "climate change" when we learn the "inconvenient truth " that the earth is not warming, at least for the last 15 years. Finally, let's stifle dissent by having the President state that "science" says the climate change issue is settled and incontrovertible and have John Kerry tell people that climate change is a weapon of mass destruction (wielded by the polluting Chinese and Indians, no doubt).

It's Called WEATHER... Climate Change MY ASS. MORONS!!!

And the WEATHER cahnges every day, every year. But when Obama's Muslim brothers in Iran uneash an EMP attak over us, you will have YOUR Climate Change when the GRID is GONE!!

Almost bingo: no difference between weather and climate, the President is a Muslim partnering with a foreign government, and the mythical threat of some type of attack (the dreaded statement of EMP by someone who most likely doesn't understand any of it). Come-on #67, you can "conspiracy" better than that.

The EMP attack lacks sufficient causality. I recommend adding contrails.

No different than the faux science GW alarmist are feeding us now. leave out any data lately, lololol? What goes around, comes around. Ever wonder why they don't call it GW anymore? Because we haven't been for the last 16 years. CG here we come. now, where is my grant money, so I don't have to get a real job.

I am sorry, but I was there and I DO REMEMBER the covers of magazines predicting a new ICE AGE in the 1970's.

It was presented as real and serious.

SO NOW you say, "Oh, pay no attention to the Global Cooling scientists of the 1970's."

It eventually faded away since it was obviously false, but there was never any great backlash from the scientific community.

You can convince willing believers that they weren't serious back in the 1970's, but you still have to explain why today's scientists who were absolutely certain (the science is settled) had to change the name from GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE.

So what was that all about?

You guys said the science was settled.

I always ask those who claim scientists had to change the name from global warming to climate change:
a) when that supposed change in terminology was made
b) what the "CC" in "IPCC" stands for
c) when the IPCC was formed
Perhaps unsurprisingly, those questions are never answered.

Ha. Great questions, I'll have to start doing that. Might even be worth a blog post. Want to write a guest blog post?

@64. valerie :

"As we are hit with freezing weather, .. "

Whose "we" here? Its summer and getting hotter where I live!

".. all I remember is the Time magazine cover of the ice age coming from the ’70’s but the people who predicted that are now politically involved with the left and their dopey global warming."

Really? Not so sure bout that. I recall reading articles in Science year book encyclopedia from the 1970's where both "coming ice age" and "global warming*" ideas where discussed and if memory serves they said the latter - ie global warming* was more likely.

Also the actual scientists tended to be apolitical and non-polemical. Some of the commentators and pundits outside of the science less so of course, natch.

"So I pulled it up and found this, the Ice Age was made up by Time and their writers in the ’70’s. I bet in another 40 years the Global warming articles will be fiction as well."

I'll take that bet. I bet you'll lose.

Also, bzzt. No. It wasn't made up by Time writers although they may have publicised someof teh climatological debate sat the time.

"One nice thing about aging is watching all this and knowing the truth!"

Or thinking you know the truth anyhow.

See also this excellent debunking of the 'In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age' canard by Greenman3610 / Peter Sinclair :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

^ * "Global warming" strikes me as the wrong term too because 'warming" has too many pleasant connotations and doesn't accurately describe the reality that our planet is getting too hot.

Personally I prefer the description of HIRGO - Human-Induced Rapid Global Overheating as the most accurate and descriptive way of terming the issue.

Plus those who use the idea that the world isn't getting hotter after all may want to read this :

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/11/14/october_2014_was_the…

Warmest October on record in the same year that we've had the warmest ever April, May, June, August and September -and it isn't even an El Nino year! Yikes. Co-incidence? (Obi- wan voice) Oh I don't think so! (/Obi-wan Kenobi voice)

@67. Navyman Norm :

It’s Called WEATHER… Climate Change MY ASS!

Shouting doesn't make it so - or even make it clear what you are referring to here Norm.

Weather and climate change both exist and are different things as is HIRGO or Global Overheating.

"And the WEATHER cahnges every day, every year."

Hell, the weather can change every hour and even in the space of a few minutes depending on where and when you are. The climate? Not so much.

But when Obama’s Muslim brothers in Iran ..

Hmm .. usually the "Obama is a secret Muslim" mob are coy on exactly which islamic brothers Obama has and which branch of that global diverse religion he supposedly follows.

I wouldn't have thought Iran would be high on that list because firstly, they are Sunni whereas the groups Obama has most notably been tied to are Sunni. For ex. - the Saudis to whose King he bowed to (Oh shock horror! Showing a foreign dignity some basic politeness ! Can't have that can we!) are Sunni. Secondly, Indonesia where Obama apparently maybe went to a mosque as a kid is Sunni - and, btw, the largest Muslim though not Arab nation. Finally the woman who told McCain, Obama was an Arab (or Ay-rab rather!) in espousing that perspective - despite Obama's skin colour and physical non-Arab nature.

Note here that Arabs and Persians aka Iranians are very diffferent groups with a bitter history of some antagonism between them and Shiite Iran hates the Sunni Arabs historically to the point of ongoing sectarian warfare now between them incl. the Syria-Iraq -Is-IL/S conflict currently raging.

So even *IF* Obama was a "secret Muslim", it strikes me as most unlikely he'd be working with Iran and more likely that he'd be working against them. Of course even the first of those is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence as per Sagan's law. (If Obama is actually a secret anything I suspect he's more likely a secret agnostic / atheist.)

"..uneash an EMP attak over us, you will have YOUR Climate Change when the GRID is GONE!!"

Nope. That won't change the climate although I guess it would mean people experience it more directly without the benefits of air-con. Enough nuclear weaponry detonated could cause a Nuclear winter but Iran lacks nuclear bombs at all and it is highly unlikely to be quickly manufacturing enough to cause that effect.

So, sorry, but you are fractally wrong in your comment there - still thanks for the laughs!

D'oh! Correction - that's :

I wouldn’t have thought Iran would be high on that list because firstly, Iran are Shia Muslims whereas the groups Obama has most notably been tied to are Sunni.

Please feel free to edit and correct for me if you are so inclined Greg Laden.

Nah, no guest post from me, Greg. You can elevate my questions to a guest post, of course, so you can easier link to that whenever someone comes up with the "they had to change the name to climate change" canard again.

And if need be, there's the following:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

The author should read the June 24, 1974 issue of Time and the April 28,1974 isuue of Newsweek which were both alarmist about the chilling of the planet. NOAA was one of the main sources quoted in the Newsweek ariticle citing temperature drops at that time which is now warning us about it being the hottest year ever. They can't have it both ways.

For you children who depend on Wiki and Google for your "science", I _lived_ through the global *** of the 1970s. There absolutely _was_ a great hue and cry about the coming ice age. Scientists (the very same scientists who were shouting global warming in the 1990s) were decrying the miles of ice that were to bury us by the year 2000.
There was even a plan to scatter carbon black on the polar caps to gather more solar heat in the attempt to prevent that ice age.
The cause then, as now, was that of maintaining the cash flow of government grants for the 'study' of climate.

Greg, you are being too kind to Kilroy.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Read it, it destroys several of Kilroy's myths.

Here is the real 1979 cover. You just did not look hard enough.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601791224,00.html

That's it? The question is reduced to 'why didn't Time do a cover on it' if it was such a big deal? Who knows why? Maybe because they didn't have to compete with a host of internet and cable competitors for readers. Maybe because everyone from the NYT to the Chicago Tribune to the Eugene Register-Guard had already published reams on the topic.
The point is that academic science can't use sensationalism to derive funding without being called on it if it is found to be false. That's just what happened in the 1970's, so excuse us if we exercise skepticism today.

From what I can tell, the people with the best background in physical climate modeling (Manabe, Wetherall, Broecker, Hansen, etc.) knew in the 1970s that the future would be dominated by greenhouse-gas-induced warming. (See, e.g., Broecker's 1976 paper that had both "global warming" and "climate change" in its title).

At the same time, some other people - mostly those who did not have as strong a background in physical climate modeling - were influenced by discussion of Milankovich cycles to speculate that we might be nearing the end of the current interglacial.

The people in the first group were right, and those in the second group were wrong.

But for some reason, fake-skeptics like to claim that the existence of the second group somehow invalidates the correct reasoning of the first group.

Frankly, it's just another example of how so much of climate contrarianism is based not just on misinformation or bad data, but on bad reasoning.

You know back in the 1970's (indeed intothe 1980';s if memory serves) there was also debate about whether quasars were extremely distant galaxies or strange objects that were very much nearer to us but somehow only appeared further away and thus more powerful.

There was the Big Bang theory versus the Steady State theory.

Yet somehow today we don't argue that because some scientists then thought quasars were nearby or the universe infinite with no Beginning that somehow means the modern understandingand scientific consensus is wrong.

Just as the phlogiston theory of fire was once widely held and argued for doesn't mean that our modern understanding of chemical combustion is somehow invalid and the scientists wrong to change their mind and drop the old no longer tenable theory based on the evidence.

Scientists back in the year umpty ump however long or short ago saying 'X' when they and we now say 'Y ' really isn't an actual argument against 'Y' being true, just a curious bit of history that shows how much we've learnt.

Climate reality Deniers that say otherwise are really not very bright or logical.

@ Chardin :

"The point is that academic science can’t use sensationalism to derive funding without being called on it if it is found to be false. That’s just what happened in the 1970’s, .."

It is? Is it really? I don't think so.

I don't think climate scientists were out to sensationalise their findings back then and I think they stressed the uncertainties and doubts and different possibilities at the time.

"so excuse us if we exercise skepticism today."

You are excused. You - and everyone else - are always welcome to exercise skepticism, I'm not quite sure that's what you are really doing here though and that's a question -'Are you really being skeptical here?' which I think you would do well to consider for yourself.

@ 86. kilroy :

"For you children who depend on Wiki and Google for your “science”, I _lived_ through the global *** of the 1970s. There absolutely was_ a great hue and cry about the coming ice age."

Y'know I think I'll still to actual tangible physical evidence such as articles and scientific papers and so on from that time. Human memory is sadly, not always relaible as has been found in a lot of experiments on eyewitness testimony for example. Our memory is not the same as photographs or recordings or ice cores and not as trustworthy. As the old saying goes the plural of anecdote isn't anec-data.

.. the very same scientists who were shouting global warming in the 1990s were decrying the miles of ice that were to bury us by the year 2000.

Some of those scientists maybe but certainly not all and likely not the majority. Stephen Schneider for instance was one scientists who famously once suggested that an ice age could be on its way - although with a lot of caveats as noted no further away than wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

In 1971, Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. I. Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138–141). This paper used a one-dimensional radiative transfer model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded:

"However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.[5]"

Carbon dioxide was predicted to have only a minor role. However, the model was very simple and the calculation of the CO2 effect was lower than other estimates by a factor of about three, as noted in a footnote to the paper.

The story made headlines in the New York Times. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974.[6]

In a 1976 book The Genesis Strategy he discusses both long-term warming due to carbon dioxide and short-term cooling due to aerosols,[7] ..

Stephen Schneieider passed away about five years ago and thus is no longer around. many of the current climate scientists are in fact young folks in their twenties and thirties and thus were not even born at the time.

"The cause then, as now, was that of maintaining the cash flow of government grants for the ‘study’ of climate."

That is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Do you actually have any extraordinary evidence to back that offensive conspiracy theory allegation up?

Do you really think climate scientists are actually getting rich from devoting their lives to understanding our climate and do you really think that's what mainly motivates them - and if that were so why go into science as opposed to business or working for , say, a fossil fuel giant that rakes in far more with arguably much less brainpower and effort required?

Also note that a scientist who broke ranks and disproved or who "blew the whistle" on the supposed "conspiracy" here would earn far more and be hailed by so many many rich and powerful people as well as not having to come up with tough peer-reviewed science papers that contradict - in your scenario -actual reality. The absence of such occurrence in essence invalidates your absurd proposition there and destroys the already obviously silly idea of any such conspiracy.

kilroy:

Scientists .. were decrying the miles of ice that were to bury us by the year 2000.

That would have been Reid Bryson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson

the very same scientists who were shouting global warming in the 1990s

Er, no. Reid Bryson remained a human-caused global warming denialist until he died.

You're just spreading a lie. Shame on you.

Robert Gunthry:

Here is the real 1979 cover.

1979? The media certainly like beating-up a dead horse don't they? This is what scientists were saying in 1976 (in New Scientist):

"The growing disturbance of the global balance of carbon dioxide is without doubt mankind's greatest single impact on the environment".

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=obHSBCxiJ1YC&pg=PA750&lpg=PA750&dq=…

Thanks for reminding us that the media like to do beat-ups by the way.

THE WRITER SOUNDS LIKE A LIBERAL demoRAT!

Whether or not there was any factual basis for a "big cool down" aside, the media, did in fact, make a huge scare campaign warning that the next ice age was coming. As a child in middle school during this time, we were taught this as *fact*, presented papers researched primarily through media clippings and worried our little hearts out over how we would live in the new ice tundra which was our only supposed future. Sure, they were wrong. But I assure you, that if you lived through it, it certainly happened, you would remember the horror that only a 12 year old budding mind can have, and you wouldn't make light of the power of a misinformed media. Perhaps research of local and regional newspapers would be more meaningful that a few magazine covers to understand the hype and scare tactics of the time.
That climate deniers use the 70's Ice Age scare as weapons to continue polluting is awful. But let's don't deny that it made for a great story back then, used to scare petroleum consumers to scale back dependency on middle eastern oil. Sound familiar in any way?

THE WRITER SOUNDS LIKE A LIBERAL demoRAT!

So not a RATpublican then?

Perhaps a RepubliCON instead?

The sophistication of climate deniers can be summed up by James Inhofe's ridiculous 2015 stunt of throwing a snowball on the Senate floor, as if "Al Gore said winter would vanish!" or the entire planet is a particular city in winter. These people are as nearsighted as moles. They harp on record snowfall as if it equates to record cold, when it's mostly a combination of greater evaporation and adequate cold to freeze water vapor. Heat elsewhere is causing the evaporation, and overall heat is accumulating. Deniers refuse to connect more than two dots at a time and try to constantly move the goalpost.

Deniers? Here's a list of articles from the 70's predicting the next ice age along with a link to the website that listed them. Many of the same scientists that are predicting global warming predicted global cooling not too long ago.

1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution's 2-way 'Freeze' On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 - Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (The Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 - U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic (The New York Times, July 18, 1970)
1970 - Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 - Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 - Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (The Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
1971 - Pollution May Bring Ice Age - Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 - New Ice Age Coming - It's Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 - Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 - Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
1972 - Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Cometh For Dicey Times (The Sun, May 29, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Coming (Deseret News, September 8, 1972)
1972 - There's a new Ice Age coming! (The Windsor Star, September 9, 1972)
1972 - Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 - British Expert on Climate Change Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 - Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (The Portsmouth Times, September 11, 1972)
1972 - New Ice Age Slipping Over North (The Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
1972 - Beginning of new ice age (The Canberra Times, September 12, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 - Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, September 12, 1972)
1972 - British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 - Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1972 - Geologist at Case Traces Long Winters - Sees Ice Age in 20 Years (Youngstown Vindicator, December 13, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age On Its Way, Scientist Says (Toledo Blade, December 13, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Predicted In About 200 Years (The Portsmouth Times, December 14, 1972)
1973 - New Ice Age coming? (Popular Science, January 1973)
1973 - The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973)
1973 - Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1973)
1973 - 'Man-made Ice Age' Worries Scientists (The Free Lance-Star, June 22, 1973)
1973 - Fear Of Man-made Ice Age (The Spartanburg Herald, June 28, 1973)
1973 - Possibility Of Ice Age Worries The Scientists (The Argus-Press, November 12, 1973)
1973 - Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 - Ominous Changes in the World's Weather (PDF) (Fortune Magazine, February 1974)
1974 - Atmospheric Dirt: Ice Age Coming? (Pittsburgh Press, February 28, 1974)
1974 - Support for theory of a cooling world (The Canberra Times, May 16, 1974)
1974 - New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 - 2 Scientists Think 'Little' Ice Age Near (Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 - Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 - Imminent Arrival of the Ice (Radio Times, November 14, 1974)
1974 - Making a BBC Science Special [The Weather Machine] (New Scientist, November 14, 1974)
1974 - The Weather Machine (BBC, November 20, 1974)
1974 - New ice age 'could be in our lifetime' (The Canberra Times, November 22, 1974)
1974 - Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1974 - Pollution Could Spur Ice Age, Nasa Says (Beaver Country Times, December 4, 1974)
1974 - Air Pollution May Trigger Ice Age, Scientists Feel (The Telegraph, December 5, 1974)
1974 - More Air Pollution Could Trigger Ice Age Disaster (Daily Sentinel, December 5, 1974)
1974 - Scientists Fear Smog Could Cause Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 5, 1974)
1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 - Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 - B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 - Cooling Trends Arouse Fear That New Ice Age Coming (Eugene Register-Guard, March 2, 1975)
1975 - Is Another Ice Age Due? Arctic Ice Expands In Last Decade (Youngstown Vindicator, March 2, 1975)
1975 - Is Earth Headed For Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, March 2, 1975)
1975 - New Ice Age Dawning? Significant Shift In Climate Seen (Times Daily, March 2, 1975)
1975 - There's Troublesome Weather Ahead (Tri City Herald, March 2, 1975)
1975 - Is Earth Doomed To Live Through Another Ice Age? (The Robesonian, March 3, 1975)
1975 - The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 - Cooling trend may signal coming of another Ice Age (The Sun, May 16, 1975)
1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 - Summer of A New Ice Age (The Age, June 5, 1975)
1975 - In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1975 - Experts ponder another ice age (The Spokesman-Review, September 8, 1975)
1975 - Oil Spill Could Cause New Ice Age (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 11, 1975)
1976 - Deadly Harvest [Film] (Starring: Kim Cattrall, Clint Walker, 1976)
1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? [Book] (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
1976 - Ice Age Predicted (Reading Eagle, January 22, 1976)
1976 - Ice Age Predicted In Century (Bangor Daily News, January 22, 1976)
1976 - It's Going To Get Chilly About 125 Years From Now (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, January 23, 1976)
1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1977 - Blizzard - What Happens if it Doesn't Stop? [Book] (George Stone, 1977)
1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age [Book] (The Impact Team, 1977)
1977 - The Ice Age Cometh... (New York Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 - The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 - Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977)
1977 - Space Mirrors Proposed To Prevent Crop Freezes (Bangor Daily News, February 7, 1977)
1977 - We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 - Ice! [Book] (Arnold Federbush, 1978)
1978 - The New Ice Age [Book] (Henry Gilfond, 1978)
1978 - Winter May Be Colder Than In Last Ice Age (Deseret News, January 2, 1978)
1978 - Current Winters Seen Colder Than In Ice Age (The Telegraph, January 3, 1978)
1978 - Winter Temperatures Colder Than Last Ice Age (Eugene Register-Guard, Eugene Register-Guard, January 3, 1978)
1978 - International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere (The New York Times, January 5, 1978)
1978 - Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
1978 - Winters Will Get Colder, 'we're Entering Little Ice Age' (Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 - Geologist Says Winters Getting Colder (Middlesboro Daily News, January 16, 1978)
1978 - It's Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, January 17, 1978)
1978 - Another Ice Age? (Kentucky New Era, February 12, 1978)
1978 - Another Ice Age? (Reading Eagle, February 13, 1978)
1978 - The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 - An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 - A Choice of Catastrophes - The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 - The Sixth Winter [Book] (John R. Gribbin, 1979)
1979 - The New Ice Age Cometh (The Age, January 16, 1979)
1979 - Ice Age Building Up (Daily Record, June 5, 1979)
1979 - Large Glacial Buildup Could Mean Ice Age (Daily Chronicle, June 5, 1979)
1979 - Ice Age On Its Way (Lewiston Morning Tribune, June 7, 1979)
1979 - Get Ready to Freeze (Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 - New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

* Note: A couple of the news stories are duplicates in different papers with slightly different titles, this is intentional to show that these types of stories were not isolated to a certain regional paper.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarm…

Here’s a list of articles

Another fool who believes everything he reads in the newspapers.

It is a was a real thing we were taught in school in the 1970's the teachers and scientist tried to scarce the hell out of us.

It is a was a real thing we were taught in school in the 1970’s

I wasn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M

[Yes. Before the effects of human greenhouse gas pollution a new ice age was a possibility and this was discussed in the 1970s, as was climate change in general. Not the point of this post, but thanks for the link.

I suggest you do not get your science from "In Search Of." It was the first sensationalistic science show leading us into a new era of science-BS all over the TV.

Meanwhile, have a look at this: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/05/scientists-predict-global-…

-gtl]

My concern is how the findings of so called "consensi of scientists" are used to influence government policy, and specifically to expand the scope of government. The 70's scare about another ice age, perpetrated throughout the entire decade, giving credence to the belief that the oncoming ice age was attributable to pollution (polluting particles creating a shield inside the earth's atmosphere that interdicted solar heat from reaching the earth's surface) formed the impetus for Nixon's creation of the EPA. How many of us have experienced the negative impact of that department's interference in commerce and individuals' lives? Now we are confronted more alarmism that will fuel further encroachments on our livelihoods. When will we ever learn to recognize the impostors? The answer: never.

Michael Bullington:

My concern is how the findings of so called “consensi of scientists” are used to influence government policy,

Right, because government policy should never be influenced by science.

The 70’s scare about another ice age, perpetrated throughout the entire decade, giving credence to the belief that the oncoming ice age was attributable to pollution (polluting particles creating a shield inside the earth’s atmosphere that interdicted solar heat from reaching the earth’s surface) formed the impetus for Nixon’s creation of the EPA.

Huh. I don't remember being scared about another ice age, but I did get sort of alarmed when the Cuyahoga River caught fire that time.

How many of us have experienced the negative impact of that department’s interference in commerce and individuals’ lives?

I don't think I've ever met anyone who has. The impact on my own life has been positive, like water that's safe to drink and air that's safe to breathe.

Now we are confronted more alarmism that will fuel further encroachments on our livelihoods.

Yeah! Freedom shouldn't come with responsibility! It's outrageous that anyone would suggest we pay the full cost of our prosperity. Enjoying the private benefits of fossil fuel use while socializing the cost of climate change is our dog-given right!

When will we ever learn to recognize the impostors?

You, at least, appear to be the genuine science-denying, conspiracy-theorizing, faux-libertarian article.

Hey Greg -- Sorry to hit you with a dose of Reality and FACTS.

You are a purveyor of prevarications.

"WOW! WORLD’S TOP PHYSICIST AND DEMOCRAT: Obama Backs “Wrong Side” In War On “Climate Change”, Follow The Money, Carbon Does Far More Good Than Harm"
By 100% FED Up -
Oct 15, 2015

"The climate models used by alarmist scientists to predict global warming are getting worse, not better; carbon dioxide does far more good than harm; and President Obama has backed the “wrong side” in the war on “climate change.”

So says one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, Dr Freeman Dyson (pictured above), the British-born, naturalised American citizen who worked at Princeton University as a contemporary of Einstein and has advised the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

In an interview with Andrew Orlowski of The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”

This mystery, says Dyson, can only partly be explained in terms of follow the money. Also to blame, he believes, is a kind of collective yearning for apocalyptic doom."

Read more and get educated...

http://100percentfedup.com/wow-worlds-top-physicist-democrat-obama-back…

You are all sacks of shit and we have learned not to trust a single word that comes out of your mouths. You doctor and falsify data. You slam anyone, scientist or not, who doubts your hypotheses. You concoct computer models that turn out to be inaccurate, and then won't fess up. You are bought and paid for by those who loathe progress and feel guilty for being more advanced than other countries. Why don't you all admit the actual truth: that there has been NO WARMING in 18 YEARS and that the SUN is responsible for the temperature on earth, and THE SUN IS COOLING DOWN NOW

You deniers are all sacks of shit and we have learned not to trust a single word that comes out of your mouths. You doctor and falsify data and its interpretations. You slam anyone, scientist or not, who imposes reality on your self-serving hypotheses. You concoct your own denier models that turn out to be inaccurate, and then won’t fess up when reality bites. You are bought and paid for by those who loathe progress and want to stick with fossil fuels and feel guilty for not being more advanced than other countries. Why don’t you all admit the actual truth: that there has been NO HIATUS in 18 YEARS and that the human-added CO2 is responsible for the temperature on earth, and THE SUN IS COOLING DOWN NOW yet THE EARTH IS WARMING UP.

I grew up in the 60's and 70's and we were inundated with magazine covers and articles warning of the coming ice age and global cooling. Now it seems promoters of climate change and global warming are trying to rewrite history and say it was all a myth, it never happened. That's BS. Is it any wonder anyone who's been around long enough knows better then to believe the hype and hysteria the media pushes. The real myth is anthropomorphic global ANYTHING. The reason we're experiencing climate change is due to the same reasons the climate has been changing for millions of years. Currently the solar system's heliosphere has degraded by an estimated 60%, thus allowing increased gamma radiation from outside our solar system to heat up temperatures on all the planets in our system. But you won't make any money pushing the truth.

Now it seems promoters of climate change and global warming ...

Dave! If you see any of these nefarious promoters of climate change, you'd best capture them and put them in a cage, then notify the FBI. We all need to do everything we can to stop the promotion of climate change, and keep the Earth's climate stable. This can only be done by reducing the CO2 emissions that are occurring globally. Remember, your health, wealth, and family are all depending on this!

I just turned 63 years old and want to know what the hell happen to my George Jetson flying car :(

The story was Newsweek, April 28, 1975. The Cooling World. Page. 64. Check it out.

The Ice age burdened the earth,s crust and now the ice is gone the crust is rebounding,rising from the sea and making our mountains grow in height. Right? no Wrong. The land is not rising it is the sea that is receding from the land. Once we can realize that fact and it is fact the Ice age fades into the realm of mythology. The Receding Sea is so obviously simple we simply overlook it. the book "The Mysterious Receding Seas" spells it all out. Richard Guy

No, not really.

The authors here are obviously professional propagandists, if not pathological liars: substituting a legitimate example of a Time cover showing the cooling scare of the 70's for this invented comparison ("a friend showed me..."). Here's the real cover that these liars are withholding from you: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19770131,00.html

--AGF

Nope. I owe you an apology. The Time covers don't happen to match with the cooling scare articles. Damn. But I can't help concluding that the cover switch was a set up (by your side) to increase confusion, since the cooling scare was real and widespread, as Pop Tech has shown. It's an irrelevant and coincidental technicality that the hype did not produce a Time cover. "Extraordinary Intelligence" is hardly in the climate skeptic business. Just how much time lapsed between EI's article and yours? --AGF

Come now, you must be aware of the CIA report outlining reports of disaster ascribed to cooling. --AGF

Come now, you must be aware of the CIA report outlining disasters ascribed to cooling. Or does the censorship begin here? --AGF

Comment 106:

Anthony

Las Vegas
July 15, 2015

says a heluva lot more than your post. --AGF

Nothing was quantified then and nothing is quantified now--except pseudo-quantification: "97% of climatologists agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is leading to climate change"? Where did you get that figure and what does it mean? Is this "climate change" significant or measurable? Is there any consensus on how or how much the climate should change? Is it serious enough that we should consider real solutions, like nuclear power? Does anyone in Asia care that coal plants proliferate there at many times the rate the West shuts them down? Or should we continue to play the same old games, tax this and that and pretend we're making a difference? All is junk science. Nobody really takes it seriously except outcasts like James Hansen, who deserves to be an outcast but for the fact that he takes his doomsday science seriously. --AGF

AGF, seems like you take your denialist talking points seriously. Do you have evidence to back any of that up?

Brainstorms, do I have to do your googling for you? You don't know that China is building coal plants at the rate of one every week or two? Of course not. Your mentors like to claim it's for the greater good when they put American coal workers out of work. That's coal China wants even with the low price of gas and oil. --AGF

AGF, I have no mentors. (I think for myself and I take Googling with an appropriate grain of salt.). Do you have evidence to back any of that up?

"Come now, you must be aware of the CIA report"

Where is this report?

Where do the AG Fosters come from? Is there an assembly line building super-stupid humans somewhere?

Yes, James Hansen is an "outcast" - LOL. Well, true if you append 'in the minds of a small sect of super-stupid humans.'

This is Steve Goddard, Paul Homewood, JoNova level dumb.

It's interesting that I recently had a related comment over at WUWT that never made it out of moderation; it read, in part:

"James Hansen is this generation's leading climate scientist. From his early work on planetary atmospheres, his work with early computer models and volcanoes, his systematic compilation of the GISS surface temperature dataset, and the hundreds of papers on which he was lead or co-author make him the truly a figure that will go down in history. Yet, on 'skeptic' sites his name is nearly a curse word. Why? Because they don't like the results."

AG Foster surely resembles that remark. I doubt he can even spell Agung or Pinatubo.

BTW - China just announced a moratorium on coal plants AND ordered many already under construction to be halted. Another GWPF shrill cry silenced by reality. Google *that* AG.

Well, O'Neill, if you have something more up- to-date than this, let's hear it: http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/03/02/china-coal-bubble-210-power…

But maybe you don't know the difference between a coal mine and a coal fired power plant.

As for Hansen being an "outcast," I'm of course referring to that being being the case within his own his alarmist party. For example Naomi Oreskes called him a "denier" because of his support for nuclear energy: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/new-form-climate-d…

And he has become persona non grata at the White House for saying of the US - China policy: "That spin is so gross, it is best described as unadulterated 100% pure bullshit."
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20151127_Isolation.pdf

And of course the IPCC has long ignored Hansen's more outlandish warnings of the runaway greenhouse effect and the Venus Syndrome. But he does have a few allies in favor of nuclear energy, even among the climate quacks.

And here's that CIA report: http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

As always, the climatics have to be educated from scratch.
--AGF

P.S. - since Hansen's name came up, I'd like to recommend anyone that has not read Spencer Weart's interview with him do so. The transcript for Part I of the interview can be found here: American Institue of Physics, Oral Histories, James Hansen - Session 1

If you browse the available transcripts you can find many more informative oral histories.

Alternatively, you could enjoy a completely fantastical history at WUWT, RealScience, etc., etc. LOL

AG Foster - funny how suddenly you don't know how to use Google, isn't it ironic?

From the very same site to which you link - just a little more recent: energydesk.greenpeac - China stops building new coal-fired power plants, 3-24-2016

Or ecowatch - China puts brakes on new coal plants, 3-24-2016

Or from Reuters - China to halt construction on coal-fired power plants in 15 regions, 3-24-2016

Hansen is an outcast :) Stick with that story. It's like hanging a sign around your neck saying 'Kick Me" BTW - you realize that the NH has already exceeded 1.5C and is near 2C above pre-industrial. An agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C *is* a pipedream.

AG, I suggest you actually *read* Hansen - not whichever denialist site you normally frequent. For Venus, you might like to first read Hansen's short piece Making Things Clearer: Exaggeration, Jumping the Gun, and The Venus Syndrome 15, April 2013.

Educated from scratch? Like having to teach you how to use Google and the difference between a coal mine and a coal-fired plant? Yes, it appears we will have to educate you from scratch - right after you've been deprogrammed. And deprogramming super-stupid humans is not easy.

Kevin O'Neill

Franklin, WI USA
March 27, 2016

"Alternatively, you could enjoy a completely fantastical history at WUWT, RealScience, etc., etc. LOL"

Except that you couldn't. O'Neill makes it all up as he goes.

AG Foster - this isn't WUWT. There will be no crowd of simpletons to cheer you on. If you don't have facts on your side you will be called out.

*You* chided others for not Googling something, then when more recent news than your offering was referenced you suddenly lost the ability to use Google. Additionally, you implied that *I* didn't know the difference between a coal mine and a coal plant. Of course the reality is you simply couldn't use Google to locate the more recent news. Ironic isn't it.

Now, having given you several easily found URLs linking to reports that China has not only put a moratorium on new coal plants you drop the subject.

Giving you Hansen's actual words on the Venus Syndrome, you drop the subject.

You represent the sect of super-stupid humans about as expected. Thanks for playing.

"Except that you couldn’t."

At least AGF doesn't disagree that he enjoys fantastical histories. Pity that he thinks they're reality.

"the CIA report"

It's interesting how a lone crackpot (Reid Bryson) can spread his influence far and wide.

If O'Neill had bothered to read the articles he links to he would have learned:
1) "Environmental group Greenpeace said the rules, if fully implemented, could involve up to 250 power projects with a total of 170 gigawatts (GW) in capacity, according to initial estimates." And,
2) At least 570 coal-fired units with 300 gigawatts of capacity could still come online, despite dramatic overcapacity of coal in China.
And he offered this China BS in a strained attempt to assure us all is well in Alarmsville, that Hansen and Obama and Oreskes see eye to eye, that Hansen now has nothing to worry about, that China has sworn of coal, etc.

And we still have India, which alone, " by 2020...may have built about 2.5 times as much capacity as the U.S. is about to lose." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-21/the-grim-promise-of-i…

"And Japan’s Kiko Network, an environmental group, says there are 43 coal projects under construction or planned to be built in the coming years to make up for the loss of nuclear power capacity after the Fukushima disaster."
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/09/japan-defies-obama-plans-on-building-…

And so the rest of Asia, as well as Germany, which is replacing its nuclear plants with lignite coal while Hansen pulls out his hair.

See, it makes little difference whether you buy into a bankrupt ideology if the risk remains so unquantified that nobody can agree what we should do about it. If anyone believed Hansen they ought to take his nonsense at face value and go nuclear. What do you think, O'Neill, should we take Hansen seriously and go all out with nuclear technology? Be forewarned, your fellow ideologues will call you a "denier."
--AGF

Chris O'Neill at #147, re. the “the CIA report”:
"It’s interesting how a lone crackpot (Reid Bryson) can spread his influence far and wide."

As #106 shows, there were few naysayers. Bryson wasn't very lonely. And as the CIA report shows, a few years of cold weather were all it took to blame every catastrophe on a few years of cooling. And what the skeptics are saying is it only took a few years of warming to repeat the stupidity.

97% of scientists agree: we don't have a clue what we should do about it. --AGF

AG - you wrote:"Brainstorms, do I have to do your googling for you? You don’t know that China is building coal plants at the rate of one every week or two? "

But you were *completely* unaware that China had placed a moratorium on new coal plants and halted construction on those already underway.

And you were unable to find the reports via Google - instead claiming others had misinterpreted 'coal mines' for 'coal plants'.

That is the history of this thread on that topic. As for your claim: "And he offered this China BS in a strained attempt to assure us all is well in Alarmsville"

Please show a quote of mine that even comes close to resembling your characterization. All my comments are up there - shouldn't be hard to find.

crickets chirping.......

test

Not gullibe at #40…you got any *proof* of that, or is that just a personal opinion, borne of delusions?

The majority of my posts disappear. That can be frustrating. Maybe links have to do with it, maybe not.

Yes, Bryson was was something of a crackpot, just like Hansen (and Mann and Jones, etc.). Google "Quark Soup" to get Apple's opinion: "Hansen anymore seems interested in promoting alarmism at all costs. There's been a whiff of this throughout his entire career, but this latest paper is just too much to take seriously." And this has been the opinion of t he IPCC as well, and their administrators have generally been crackpots, like Pachauri. So Hansen is a crackpot among crackpots.

Warm is good. Cold is bad. There's a 50/50 chance the surface temp will go up or down. When it goes up that's usually good. It means we're still recovering from the LIA. As the lone crackpot Callendar said way back, the CO2 warming should "save us from the deadly glaciers." And if we're lucky it will, but it probably won't.

It makes no difference whether we take Hansen seriously. Nuke power is good but gas will do, and China and the climate don't care one way or the other. It makes no difference whether we acquiesce to the climate credo if no one can agree on how to address it. If it were as serious as Hansen likes to think, we should take his advice. But like he says, the Paris conference and BAU offer nothing but junk solutions.

So O'Neill, should we invest immediately in massive nuclear technology or dis Hansen as he deserves? Can you answer that? --AGF

Paykasa Bozdurma (#153): "borne of delusions."

"not gullible" is probably right. As I recall I found the original post a few days ago and now I can't. I think the obscure "Natalina" has taken it down, totally embarrassed. She suckered for a plant from the climate quacks whose modus operandi has always been one of tricks and deceit. Mann, Gleike, Pachauri, the white washes, the forever changing surface record (GISS under Hansen), Karl et al. Liars all, who will flinch at nothing to advance their agenda.

A timeline would help a little. When did the trick post first appear. How long did it take Kirtley to find it and Laden to publish it? And first someone pretty astute had to notice that there was no correspondence between the Time covers and the cooling articles. Pop Tech mixes in one of those weather motivated covers with the cooling doom coverage, quite misleadingly. (I was misled.)

Sure looks like a setup to me. --AGF

There’s a 50/50 chance the surface temp will go up or down.

That's a demonstrated falsehood.

OK, given a randomly selected time, there is a 50/50 chance that T will be rising and a 50/50 chance that it will be falling. Get it?

Wow. You really ARE as stupid as people are saying.

Go back to your brain-addling propaganda fix, or whatever allows you to cocoon your mindset in more of that comfort of self-righteousness and false certainty.

I'm done with you...

I guess Brainstorms' brain got washed out. Or he never took a math class.

"he never took a math class"

If you want to take a math class, then knock yourself out.

Yes, Bryson was was something of a crackpot

At least we all agree that Bryson (the source of many of the citations in #106) was a crackpot. That agreement doesn't extend to 97% of todays climate scientists of course. I'll bet you're not interested in producing a subset of the list in #106 that isn't sourced from crackpots.

Come on O'Neill, shall we go nuclear or shan't we?

But Bryson was a crackpot only in the sense that Hansen and your bogus 97% are crackpots: he like them extrapolated doom from a short record. NOBODY went to the press in the 70's and said Bryson and all were crackpots. NOBODY knew the cool spell would be short lived. NOBODY knew whether CO2 would ever do any good or evil, including Callendar, though he thought it would do some good. NOBODY took Callendar seriously in his lifetime. And I don't take Hansen seriously and neither do you, or Oreskes or Obama or the IPCC or China or hardly anyone else. --AGF

OK, given a randomly selected time, there is a 50/50 chance that T will be rising and a 50/50 chance that it will be falling.

The amount of stupid packed into that short sentence is astounding.

AG Foster: "OK, given a randomly selected time, there is a 50/50 chance that T will be rising and a 50/50 chance that it will be falling."

AG - You do realize that the question is complete nonsense as posed, don't you? The inability to even ask an intelligent question underlines your ignorance on the subject.

Hard to say who's funnier, O'Neill or his link. First, on the 50/50 point: "AG – You do realize that the question is complete nonsense as posed, don’t you? The inability to even ask an intelligent question underlines your ignorance on the subject."

My assertion is patently obvious to anyone with a high school science education. I'm surrounded by idiots.

And his link (from 1976)--marvelously entertaining.

Excerpts:

"The current steady rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a major threat to the stability of natural climate patterns, a threat that if realised could within 40 years [2016] throw into complete chaos world agricultural production."

Notice the reference to "natural climate patterns" rather than
GHG warming, which is never mentioned in the article. Remember this was a period of cooling. And before reading "global warming" between the lines consider this line:

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide would, however, reach suffocating levels long before even a modest fraction of the coal stocks are burned."

We are left to guess whether they speak of suffocating heat or CO2 asphyxiation, which can be a problem at less than 5000ppm, but the context suggests the latter.

And the predictions:

"The real problem would be faced if coal were to replace the other fossil fuels when they dry up in 40 years time [2016]."

"[The CO2 level] is set to double its current figure of 332 ppm in less than 50 years [2026]."

So O'Neill's link makes my case better than I could; these guys didn't have a clue what CO2 would do, or even what would produce it--the article asserts that biomass was as problematic as oil and gas, that by 2016 we will have run out of gas and oil, that gas and oil were too scarce to be a problem anyway, but that by 2016 agriculture would be in chaos due to coal burning. I suppose George Soros still believes that--just move the date back a little. And of course they're way off on the CO2 prediction.

There's just not a competent scientist on the planet who takes this climate doom seriously, and as the O'Neills and other posters insist on demonstrating here, neither is there an intelligent layman who buys into it. --AGF

Sorry, wrong quote.

NOBODY went to the press in the 70’s and said Bryson and all were crackpots

Bolin went to the press and contradicted Bryson's claims about global cooling being the thing to worry about.

I'm still waiting for a subset of the list in #106 that isn’t sourced from the agreed crackpot Bryson.

"Bolin went to the press and contradicted Bryson’s claims about global cooling being the thing to worry about."

Prove it. As for Bryson, the burden is on you: find any articles that CAN be traced to him. As early as Mar 4, 1970, we have a gov. agency predicting cooling doom: "Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times."

--AGF

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/essa_news/QC801E71970v6no13.pdf

My assertion is patently obvious to anyone with a high school science education.

your assertion is stupid - to this person with a Ph.D. in statistics, and to everyone else here.

I am surrounded by idiots.

I would guess that the people to whom you usually talk about this, and who agree with you, are idiots.

AG - Do you understand what an ill-posed question even is? Clue: "A problem which may have more than one solution, or in which the solutions depend discontinuously upon the initial data."

Now, I said your question was ill-posed. It is. There are numerous solutions based on what we're using for initial data. Is the randomly selected time seconds, minutes, days, weeks, months, years? Is it the same time each day, week, month, year?

That you fail to understand that 'Time of Observation' inherently influences the result is not surprising.

Just another pseudoskeptic with half a brain.

NOBODY went to the press in the 70’s and said Bryson and all were crackpots.

OK smartypants. Prove it.

NOBODY knew the cool spell would be short lived.

Prove it.

NOBODY knew whether CO2 would ever do any good or evil

Prove it.

As for Bryson, the burden is on you: find any articles that CAN be traced to him.

You dumb clown. Your precious CIA report cites the "Wisconsin study", Wisconsin being the place where Bryson was professor of earth sciences.

So at least the only agreed crackpot was the one who forecast that the world would return to the climate regime of the Little Ice Age.

So when are you going to get rid of citations based on claims originating from agreed crackpots (Bryson at least) from your list?

Me, #154: "Warm is good. Cold is bad. There’s a 50/50 chance the surface temp will go up or down. "

Me, #157: " OK, given a randomly selected time, there is a 50/50 chance that T will be rising and a 50/50 chance that it will be falling. Get it?"

Dean, #171: "your assertion is stupid – to this person with a Ph.D. in statistics, and to everyone else here."

Goes to show how perfectly incompetent one can be and still have a Phd. "Random": any time or place in the universe. "Stasis": approached only in deep space but never perfectly achieved. Assuming a Big Bang the universe has been cooling ever since, but before the Bang nothing can be known including the existence of time.

Limiting the discussion to the earth, the interior is probably cooling slowly as radioactive matter is spent. Tidal heat is slowly decreasing as the moon's distance increases.
Solar radiation at this stage is slowly decreasing. All these factors occur over billions of years.

Let's take an automobile engine. You might say it spends very little time heating up and more time staying hot or cooling down, but that depends on the precision specified. In fact the engine warms while it accelerates or climbs, and cools as it coasts. And while it idles its temperature fluctuates depending on when the fan kicks in.

Limiting the discussion to global T of the Pleistocene (as one might automatically expect with climate discussions among reasonable company) my assertion obviously holds true: it might be possible to show that sea ice melts faster than it freezes on various time scales, but in the absence of such specific knowledge we are forced to fall back on the general rule: T does not remain the same; it goes up or down with an even chance of either. Moreover the climatic fluctuations are overwhelmed by seasonal and daily variation. For 6 months or 12 hours the earth warms; then it cools.

So going into the LIA the earth cooled. Coming out of it the earth warmed. At any given time and on any scale of time or T there is a 50/50 chance of either. At present we are recovering from the LIA. GHG's might be supposed to be responsible for some of the current warming but there is no evidence for this in the troposphere.

At any rate, my statement stands, and I'm surrounded by idiots--Phd'd idiots or not. --AGF

A G Foster tells us that he spends his days in the Fun House "Hall of Mirrors".

No one is surprised. He favors the mirror that makes his head look big.

It's all an illusion. He never believes anyone who points this out to him, preferring to insult them.. as he goes back to admiring the distorted image of himself.

Re #173:

First the trivia: The CIA never mentions Bryson in the text; only Kutzbach from Wisconsin. Its bibliography lists 4 technical papers from Bryson, including "Climate Modification by Air Pollution." Peterson et al, in their farcical "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus," list only three Bryson papers in their charted tally: 2 "neutral" (1974, 77) and one "cooling" (1976); Bryson published 11 papers in 1974 alone.

The notion that Bryson was a maverick is far fetched. That the climate was cooling was little argued. That the cooling was man made as Bryson argued was certainly disputed as it is today, but many modern warmists continue to blame the cooling of the 70's on aerosols. Stephen Schneider condoned Bryson's communicating the "urgency of the situation" but not the "certainty." Schneider had no trouble jumping on the warming band wagon when it came around. If you just switched "global cooling" to climate change Bryson would fit right in today. Like Schneider and Barrett and many others then, and Hansen and a host more now, he was a climate alarmist --an anthropogenic climate change alarmist. And he was generally wrong, as have been the modern alarmists: 97% of climate models run high.

But O'Neill, I still can't get an answer from you: should we invest in nuclear energy like Hansen says? Or his Hansen too extreme for you? --AGF

agf@174: Your string of unrelated "science sounding" comments make no sense, and in no way support what you are trying to say.

It is of no use trying to discuss things with someone as deeply uninformed as you.

Well why should I waste time with you any more than with Brainlesstorm? Nobody has offered an iota of criticism of substance. And of course no idiot can. --AGF

#177: "It is of no use trying to discuss things with someone as deeply uninformed as you."

You might start by offering a rebuttal. Something beyond, "I'm a Phd. and you don't know squat." I'll try to make it easier for you. Suppose you have equal odds of living in either hemisphere, north or south. I could safely give even odds that the seasonal weather is warming or cooling in your area. Or suppose that you have even odds of living in any time zone on the globe. The chances are even that at this moment the outside temperature is rising or falling. So tell us that makes no sense and see if it helps your credibility. --AGF

You know, Dean, that Ph.D.'s don't argue high school-level subject matter with kindergarteners...

They may try to teach kindergarteners some of the basics of high school-level subjects...

...But kindergarteners aren't taken to starting hostile disputation with their superior should the Ph.D. offer to teach them.

Because kindergarteners don't hew assiduously to mindless ideologies and value those ideologies and self-centered interests higher than learning something valuable.

There are those who are teachable, and then there are those who are hopelessly useless, to themselves and to society.

AG Foster - I said your question was ill-posed and that has not changed.

I started with time, but we could do the same with geography.

If one posits a given locale, a given time, and a reference frame, then it's possible to calculate odds. Otherwise your question has multiple solutions depending on the data. It is almost the definition of an ill-posed question.

BTW. The odds that the odds are 50% are virtually nil. Given a random time interval it is overwhelmingly more likely that the second temperature will be colder. The only way to change this is to change the question - make it less ill-posed.

Once you figure out why the odds are the second temperature is likely to be colder you will be on the right track - i.e., you will have displayed at least the ability to think outside your preconceived notions.

My inclination is that you can't even grog the fact your question is ill-posed, much less figure out why the answer with the fewest assumptions is colder.

#180: Still name calling, devoid of substance. Zero points.

The CIA never mentions Bryson in the text; only Kutzbach from Wisconsin.

You dumb deliberately dense clown. The text says "The second group, at the University of Wisconsin, is under Reid Bryson and John Kutzbach, both mentioned earlier."

So when are you going to get rid of citations based on claims originating from agreed crackpots (Bryson at least) from your list?

Nobody has offered an iota of criticism of substance. And of course no idiot can. –AGF

We're already aware that you can't.

181: Ah yes, I missed the single mention on p.26. That no doubt precludes any influence from Barrett at ESSA (the for runner of NOAA -- Bryson was careful by comparison.) Pretty much irrelevant. We still can't get a commitment from O'Neill on whether we should go with nuclear technology. Is he capable of admitting fallibility in his hero, or of the uselessness of current remedies? --AGF

You know, Dean, that Ph.D.’s don’t argue high school-level subject matter with kindergarteners…

I know. I'm done, but I do feel tainted by his stupidity aura.

Yeah, I felt I needed a shower afterward, too. ::shivver::

And here folks, you have a microcosm of the religion of climate doom. Despair of any good argument, all ye who enter here. When every last prognostication fails they'll just say, April Fools! --AGF

Re. (current, but changeable) #181: "BTW. The odds that the odds are 50% are virtually nil. Given a random time interval it is overwhelmingly more likely that the second temperature will be colder."

What gibberish.

But yes, the earth is slowly cooling down (as I said above), and more importantly, as we approach another big or little ice age we will cool down in the shorter term. Ultimately the coolers were right: we will generally have more to fear from cooling than warming. Even now. --AGF

agf:

I missed

So when are you going to get rid of citations based on claims originating from agreed crackpots (Bryson at least) from your list?

Or is all we get from you a shyte list sourced from crackpots?

the religion of climate doom

You mean your list sourced from crackpots.

"But yes, the earth is slowly cooling down "

Any day now! Really! It will! It was in 1990, but then it warmed up. And then it was cooling in 1998, too! But then it warmed up again, but really, any day now the cooling will commence!

OK, given a randomly selected time, there is a 50/50 chance that T will be rising and a 50/50 chance that it will be falling."

Are we talking localized temps, spatially averaged temps or temporally averaged temps (or both), averaged locally or globally? If this one random selected time interval how long is the interval? Minutes, days, months, decades? What criteria would you use to determine if the change in that interval is significant or you just saying any random fluctuation works? Or are you wanting to compare two randomly selected time intervals (of indeterminate length) side-by-side?

That's just the start of the things we need to know to answer the question. As others have pointed out, as the question stands it is nonsense although the seed of the idea does have promise as an interesting exercise for students.

AG - there are two O'Neill's posting in this thread; referring to "O'Neill" (again) shows your lack of attention to detail.

Now, I've told you your question is ill-posed and yet you haven't even tried to defend it.

Time (sampling)
Location
Reference Frame(total time period considered)

In the long run the sun will die out. That will last for eternity. I.e., sampling over the life of the universe will have more than 99.999999% of the temperatures at or near absolute zero.

In the long, but shorter run - say a trillion years) the sun will increase in brightness, become a red dwarf and then a white dwarf. This will dominate for most of the sun's remaining life. So in this timeframe the odds are of warming.

Now, as we shorten the scale both the sampling period and the reference frame must be known. At shorter and shorter periods we also need to know the location.

As I said, your question was ill-posed. You were unable to defend it or supply a decent answer (50% LOL).

In fact, I suspect you cannot concoct a single well-posed question where the odds are 50% other than sampling at sub-minute intervals and making the reference frame extremely short.

Thanks for playing.

A)

Sorry - 'red giant' for 'red dwarf' in the above.

K O'Neill and Andrews: you're splitting hairs. At any point on the globe and on nearly all scales of time, there is within a percent of a percent of a percent a 50/50 chance that that place is either warming or cooling. Your inability to see the truth of this basic, elementary point speaks poorly of your philosophical skill. How can I teach such thick skulled people?

Marco, pinheads come out of the woodwork here. A normal person would notice the parenthetic, "as I said above," and check to see what I said above. As even K O'Neill and Andrews recognize, in the long term the earth is cooling. Over the last 15 years it hasn't done much of anything. That could change for the better with a little warming. The LIA was no fun.

I wonder what percentage of O'Neill's spell their name with two L's. --AGF

Chris O'Neill: You have only scored the cheapest points possible. You dwell on the irrelevant and ignore what matters. I repeat, it matters not whether we cite the credo if we can't agree on the discipline. Your hero Hansen says anything but nuclear won't cut it. So the radicals among the zealous label him a "denier." They don't like his solution.

Of course it boils down to the magnitude of the problem: the risk must be quantified. If it were as high as Hansen insists, we would be fools not to agree. Bryson said we're doomed; Hansen says we're doomed. Kyoto like solutions only reveal one's hypocrisy. Gore doesn't really believe the junk he preaches--he just gets rich like a televangelist.

I don't really believe you're capable of learning anything from it, but I might just take you up on the list challenge. So far we have one point a piece. Care to place any bets?
--AGF

AG - " on nearly all scales of time" LOL. What fraction of eternity is that again? What fraction of the rest of the sun's lifespan? Even when explained to you you can't understand it. Pretty much what I predicted several comments back.

Nonsense. As I said, you can't come up with *any* scenario - other than very, short sub-minute sampling, where the odds are nearly 50%. If you could, you'd propose one or offer a well-posed question.

The fact you can't speaks volumes.

P.S. the correct spelling would have two ells (the original Gaelic Ua Néill). There is a high correlation between single ells (or O'Neal spelling) and immigration through ports other than the northeastern USA.

agf:

You have only scored the cheapest points possible.

What pathetic hypocrisy. You cite a cheap list of mainly practically inaccessible newspaper articles for your claims of scientists unconditionally forecasting global cooling and you have the hide to accuse me of only scoring cheap points????????

Don't make me laugh.

agf:

Over the last 15 years it hasn’t done much of anything.

15 years is quite often not long enough to prove anything. So the above claim is just a strawman. However, even the last 15 years (since the beginning of 2001 specifically) has shown statistically significant global warming in GISTEMP and NOAA land/ocean.

Also, GISTEMP, HADCRUT4, NOAA and Berkeley all show statistically significant warming over the last 5 years since the beginning of 2011. Global warming is now roaring away.

But global warming denialist clowns like agf keep saying "the pause, the pause".

Sorry, the "pause" is dead. Let it rest in peace.

#199 or KO: " As I said, you can’t come up with *any* scenario – other than very, short sub-minute sampling, where the odds are nearly 50%."

A thoroughly meaningless statement when "nearly" remains unquantified, unless it were taken as a definition.

And I already gave two examples, hemisphere and time zone. I leave it to you to quantify "nearly" in those two examples. --AGF

The matter in Chris O'Neill's skull is not grey.

201: "Sorry, the “pause” is dead. Let it rest in peace."

Yeah, after dozens of papers were written trying to explain it, and Oreskes hollering for the word to disappear from the community vocabulary, Karl et al suddenly make it disappear with such atrocious junk science that even Michael Mann and Ben Santer protested. And then the records were adjusted to accommodate Karl's junk science, and poof, the pause was gone. You can fool some of the people all the time -- without even trying.
--AGF

AG - No, you never responded with any well-posed question. Your remark on hemispheres (not addressed to me, but to #177 - not my comment) shows exactly why the question is ill-posed; you get a different result depending on hemisphere, time of day, time of year, etc. You are *unable* to post a single well-posed question. You can't. You haven't. You never will.

I will repeat; to get a meaningful answer you need to specify a location, a sampling period, and the timeframe over which we will sample. Even giving you these criteria that will lead to a well-posed question, you can't find a scenario that's 50-50.

Ignorance is one thing - we're all ignorant on one subject or another - but now you're just showing us you stupidity, an inability to learn.

after dozens of papers were written

The operative word here being "after". "The pause is dead" is what you write after the pause has finished.

Oreskes hollering for the word to disappear from the community vocabulary

No shit. Wouldn't that be sensible after the pause has finished.

Karl et al suddenly make it disappear

Maybe you should complain to Roy Spencer who has brought it to an end too (along with every compiler of surface records, but we all know they're a global conspiracy).

The "pause" is dead. Stop torturing it. It's not pretty to play with dead bodies. Let it rest in peace.

Once again, #154: There’s a 50/50 chance the surface temp will go up or down."

#157: "OK, given a randomly selected time, there is a 50/50 chance that T will be rising and a 50/50 chance that it will be falling."

These are essentially true statements. The second is less general than the first, and granted, no uncertainties were given, but the inane quibbling over such a basic statement is absurd. As I said before, I'm surrounded by idiots. The matter in both O'Neills' skulls is not grey. --AGF

Two different claims: 1) there never was a Pause; 2) the Pause is over. The Niño makes it look like the pause is over but that remains to be seen. Oreskes' ban on the word came at the end of 2013 when the Pause was alive and well. Karl et al claimed there never was a Pause. Then the the surface T records were adjusted according to Karl et al, making the Pause disappear. But Spencer said a year and a month ago:

"The “pause” in global warming is becoming increasingly difficult for the climate establishment to ignore, which is a good thing. They are now coming up with reasons why there has been a “pause” (a term I dislike because it implies knowledge of future warming, which no one has), and spinning it as if it is bad new for us."

And you're mixing him in with the quacks? As always, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, but you keep babbling on. --AGF

To Greg Laden:
Your format is horrendous. Numbers are apparently assigned when a post begins, and the writer may sit on it for hours before submitting. Then no time of day is indicated by which to identify a post. A recipe for endless confusion, baked and burned. Is there no remedy for this? --AGF

"These are essentially true statements."

No they are essentially incorrect statements. Let's take the 'randomly selected' time-period January to July: the global temperature is likely to be rising in this period (January is on average almost 4 degrees Celsius cooler than July).

Please note that my response is mainly for the lurkers, as I don't think AGF will ever understand the point Kevin O'Neill made, and that I made even more specific.

Marco's only post from this year (#193):

April 1, 2016
“But yes, the earth is slowly cooling down ”

Any day now! Really! It will! It was in 1990, but then it warmed up. And then it was cooling in 1998, too! But then it warmed up again, but really, any day now the cooling will commence!
=============================================
Somehow Marcos imagines he has said something relevant here. And his latest:

" Let’s take the ‘randomly selected’ time-period January to July: the global temperature is likely to be rising in this period (January is on average almost 4 degrees Celsius cooler than July)."

This pinhead thinks he can cherry pick a "random" time frame. I thought April Fools was over. --AGF

AG writes - "This pinhead thinks he can cherry pick a “random” time frame. "

AG - *You* are the pinhead. I told you your question was ill-posed, Marco illustrates the point. Unless you supply a location, sampling period and reference timeframe the answers are all over the place.

Yet you *can't* supply those data criteria because any set of criteria you actually select will disprove your point.

I've already shown how sampling over eternity will lead to cooler; I've shown how sampling over the life of the sun will lead to warmer. That's the problem with an ill-posed question; different assumptions lead to contradictory answers.

There are an infinite number of possibilities - but you can't find even *one* that yields your preferred answer. LOL.. Not ONE! That's what I would expect from an actual pinhead. Own it. Wear it.

AG - Pause? Are you still on about that? Please show me the pause in any scientific graph of Ocean Heat Content. Then explain why the oceans, with a heat capacity thousands of times more than the atmosphere, are not a better gauge of the earth's energy flow.

The whole 'pause' meme was based on a bait-and-switch; the earth is not the atmosphere. The 'A' in AGW does *not* stand for 'Atmosphere.' AGW is a theory of how the *earth* will warm due to human influences, mainly CO2 and associated feedbacks.

Deniers - of which you are one - fail to realize or accept basic physics. Radiative transfer is a fact. GHGs warming the planet is a fact. There is no global scientific conspiracy. Only nutjobs believe in one.

That these impacts of GHGs are oftentimes not immediately visible in surface temperatures should surprise no one. There is plenty of natural variation (i.e., weather). If we saw ocean heat content dropping, then a better scientific explanation would have to be found. That has not been the case. Ocean heat content shows there never was any pause in the earth's energy balance.

But even surface temps now give lie to the whole pause meme - so it should die even for those that don't understand that it was a manufactured denier meme in the first place.

We will avidly await your explanation on OHC. Just as we avidly await your simple data criteria for 50-50 question. In other words, none of us will be holding our breath.

AG: P.S. - I once wrote an essay about people like you. You can find it reposted as a comment. In it I ask a simple question. So which of the four glass slippers are you wearing?

Re. Kevin@#213, 4/4: nothing but alchemy.

Are you also foolish enough to deny the pause? The pause about which dozens of papers have been written in explanation? The "pause" which always referred to surface T? Surface T, which was the only T record fussed over until the pause came along? Surface T from which the alchemists conjured up a hockey stick? The hockey stick which the skeptics called voodoo science, but which was only relevant if the ocean was ignored?

And now you want to tell me surface T doesn't matter because the ocean is bigger? What do you imbeciles think we've been trying to tell you nincompoops for the last 20 years? And you think you're teaching us when you spit our own arguments back at us?

111 out of 114 climate models run hot; never fear, Kevin knows more than all those modelers, and why none of their models were worth a damn-- the heat was going into the ocean! Therefore, says Kevin, the skeptics don't know squat.
Kevin, are you able to tell us why surface T flat lined while ARGOS picked up some barely measurable warming? Why at some particular time and not some other? And you're gonna wait for my explanation, as if you had one?
And since the ocean is capable of sinking heat without necessarily heating the atmosphere, as the skeptics have always held, why should we worry about GHG's?

I sure as hell won't wait for a coherent answer. And if you can't get these simple questions straight, how will you ever go anywhere in probability and cosmology? --AGF

agf:

Spencer said a year and a month ago

Spare us the ancient history lesson.

The Niño makes it look like the pause is over but that remains to be seen.

Can you give up this crap for God's sake?

The so called "pause" was invented because every global temperature record did not show "statistically significant" warming since 1998 right up until the beginning of 2015 (but it was close for quite a while). That condition has now ended. Every global temperature surface record now shows statistically significant global warming since 1998. Even Roy Spencer's official noisy satellite radio reception shows statistically significant warming since the end of 1998.

Statistically significant warming => no "pause"

What does it take to get this through your thick skull?

The stupidity of AG Foster apparently knows no bounds. The simple fact is that if I can so easily cherry pick a period in which warming is much more likely to occur than cooling, it is *impossible* to pick "any random period" in which it is just as likely to warm as it is to cool. After all, "any random period" includes the specific period I chose. That means the claim AG Foster made is actually wrong, because there must be specific conditions for that "random period" to exclude the possibility someone by accident choses e.g. the period January to July (or July to January for that matter).

agf:

The pause about which dozens of papers have been written in explanation?

Just because there was a temporary "pause", viz no statistically significant surface temperature warming for a climatically insignificant period, doesn't mean scientists are not entitled to research it. Just like they research the ongoing, and now statistically significant since 1998, global warming.

Surface T, which was the only T record fussed over until the pause came along?

Don't worry. You can fuss over it again now, if that's all you're capable of understanding.

only relevant if the ocean was ignored

WTF are you bullshitting about? The hockey stick reconstructions were for the whole northern hemisphere or globe. They did not exclude the oceans.

AG - the entire 'pause' was *based* on an El Nino - moron. Compare El Nino years only to El Nino years; compare La Nina years only to KLa Nina years; compare ENSO neuitral years only to ENSO neutral years; what does that tell ya? Every trend line is up consistently!

Denier morons just can't keep their stories straight - was the 'pause' due to El Nino? Yes, but somehow then we should ignore El Nino ony when it *ends* the 'pause.' You have zero ability to explain *earth's* warming. Zero ability to explain ocean heat content.

Ignorant, stupid, insane, or just plain evil? Which glass slipper are you wearing AG?

@106. Anthony :

Late here I know but skimming though your list I saw

1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – The Sixth Winter [Book SF novel] (Douglas Orgill & John R. Gribbin, 1979)

(Corrections and emphasis added.)

I happen to have - and have read and reread - both those books and they don't exactly add up to support of the belief in global cooling or an imminent ice age.

One of those, 'The Sixth Winter', is an enjoyable, interesting Science Fiction novel which is based on the premise of solar minima leading to a new abrupt ice age. Its a good read but we now know the premise is NOT what is happening nor really likely to happen. Even within the novel itself it notes in a fictional report for the novel's fictional President on the heroes (& novels) thesis :

ELEVEN It is, of course, my duty to inform you that this is one of several models now being postulated as the final trigger for Ice Age conditions.

TWELVE I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is premature to draw any such dramatic conclusions from the present run of rather unusual conditions with recurrent 'blocking highs'.

(Capitalisation & italicisation original.)

Source : Pages 22-23, 'The Sixth Winter', Douglas Orgill & John Gribbin, Futura Publications 1980.

So its a speculative SF "If then" novel which includes caveats inside the text - hardly a source for seriously claiming that something actually *is* happening or even going to happen.

The other example would have Isaac Asimov - of whom I am a big fan BTW - rolling in his grave.

Asimov's A choice of Catastrophes is a wide ranging non-fiction set of essays about possible future calamities which very briefly touches upon the possible scenario of a future Ice Age among a great many other possibilities such as the death of our Sun or collision with it, bolide impacts and nuclear war. Oh & the Greenhouse effect too for instance :

Since 1900 for instance, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen from 0.029 per cent to 0.032 per cent. It is estimated that by the year 2000, the concentration may reach a figure of 0.038 per cent, an increase of some 30 per cent in the century. This must be the result, at least in part, of the burning of fossil fuels, though it may also be due, in part , to the retreat of forests which are more efficient as carbon dioxide absorbers than are other forms of vegetation. ... (snip -aside on breathing) .. It does not take much of an increase in the carbon dioxide concentration to intensify the greenhouse effect appreciably.

&

There are those, in fact, who point out that if the carbon dioxide content increases above a certain point, the slight rise in the ocean's average temperature will release carbon dioxide from solution in the ocean water, which will further enhance the greenhouse effect, raising the ocean temperature still higher, releasing still more carbon dioxide and so on. Such a 'runaway greenhouse effect' might raise Earth's temperature finally to beyond the boiling point of water and make it uninhabitable; and that would surely be a catastrophic consequence of burning fossil fuels."

Source : Pages 310 - 311, 'A Choice of Catastrophes : The disasters that threaten our world'', Isaac Asimov, Hutchinson & co, 1979.

Also, y'know, this :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz1g55H6XgA

Is what Isaac Asimov was actually saying about this issue back in the 1970's - to be precise 1977 - back when Niki Lauda was winning the F1 championship, Jimmy Carter was US President and before we knew Pluto had even one moon let alone five of them. 'Bout the time Viking was landing on Mars.

To then use these sources to pretend Isaac Asimov thought the world was cooling or that scientists in general then did, is at best and with maximum charity, horribly mistaken and disingenous and at worst outright dishonesty and blatantly lying.

Oh back in the 1980's (just - but that's still three decades in the past. Yyyii-ikes! ) Isaac Asimov was saying this -consistently & scientifically accurately :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEPhf0SHQEk

How dare these (almost indecipherable & unprintable obscenities) now try to use one of his books as a cite for their (putting it way too politely) rubbish?

Shameless flippin' factually erroneous douchebags!

D'oh! The italicisation referred too inmy quote from The Sixth Winter was the line :

I cannot emphasise too strongly

For clarity.

C O'Neill contradicts himself between 215 and 216, and he contradicts K O'Neill between 216 and 217, where KO says:
"AG – the entire ‘pause’ was *based* on an El Nino – moron."

It's hardly clear what KO means to say; maybe he supposes the Pause is a statistical artifact of a Niño step function and has no real meaning, or whether he blames global warming on Niños in a tautological sort of way. Or maybe he really means to invoke natural variation. But I'm not inclined to give him any benefit of doubt--he is an arrogant fool who ignores the vast disagreement among the experts, as reported here:

LINK DELETED

I'm pretty much wasting my time with anyone named O'Neill.
--AGF

AG - foster - the quotes around 'pause' should give you a clue. If English isn't your first language, then you'll learn about 'air quotes' someday.

Deniers - like yourself - claim the 'pause' only ended because of a large El Nino - but the 'pause' only existed because of a larger El Nino. So, it's deniers that want it both ways.

As I said, compare El Nino years, La Nina years, and ENSO neutral years respectively. The trend for all three subsets is steadily upwards. Comparing like to like removes any influence of El Niino/La Nina and shows what any iintelligent person already knew. Deniers - like yourself- do not qualify as intelligent persons, sadly.

Still waiting on OHC explanation.
Still waiting on a well-posed 50-50 proposition.

Crickets chirping .......

agf:

C O’Neill contradicts himself between 215 and 216

The claim of a moron who thinks the "pause", whatever it was, continues. He probably doesn't even understand the difference between "was" and "is".

Does the "pause" continue? Who knows ? Was there a pause? CO says yes; KO says it was an invention of deniers. True, some preferred to call it a "slow down" or 'hiatus," but few blamed it on Niños. Too bad Laden won't allow a link to the list, but here's just one explanation for the pause that has nothing to do with Niños: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897.abstract

So rest assured, when Kevin O'Neill imagines himself sitting on orthodoxy calling out heretics he doesn't have the slightest clue, much less does he come to grips with the real essence of the question, why are the models all wrong?:
http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png
The predictions have been as bad as during the cool scare.

KO: "Still waiting on OHC explanation."
I wonder what he's talking about.

KO: "Still waiting on a well-posed 50-50 proposition."
Since he steadfastly refuses to accept a practical setting (quaternary surface T) I'll play his game one more minute: will the universe expand forever or is there enough dark matter to halt it? In the former case all finite time ranges becomes infinitesimal, and so any corresponding ΔT; the odds of warming or cooling remain equal at zero. In the latter heating and cooling balance out. The odds remain even: 50/50. --AGF

Was there a pause? CO says yes

Rubbish. I said there was a "pause", viz something called a "pause". That doesn't mean that "pause" is a correct choice of name, just a name that some people rightly or wrongly use.

few blamed it on Niños.

Absolute crap. 2011 and 2012 were the strongest pair of La Ninas on record and just happened to be near the end of the so called "pause".

In any case, statistical significance doesn't care if there were or were not El Ninos/La Ninas in any particular period. That's why statistical significance matters. If there is statistical significance then the warming is more than just that produced temporarily by El Ninos/La Ninas or any other type of noise.

Greg Laden

April 6, 2016
"AG, I don’t allow links to science denial sites."

Do you burn books too?

Chris at 217: "Just because there was a temporary “pause”, viz no statistically significant surface temperature warming for a climatically insignificant period, doesn’t mean scientists are not entitled to research it."

It's good that Chris's nonexistent "pause" is temporary--that makes it easier for it to have an end even when it doesn't exist. I tell you these are intellectual giants we're dealing with. --AGF

A G Foster:
Should we be allowed to drop turds in your living room when we come to visit?

agf, you've demonstrated you aren't very bright with the 50/50 thing, and not very honest with the statements about the pause, but: this is a science blog, not a denialist blog. This is not a public space but a private one. Why does having a policy of not promoting sites that actively spread disinformation and lies seem odd? Cries of censorship are really stupid, especially since you're still here spouting your crap.

So you too condone book burning, while implicitly admitting that this is nothing but a propaganda site which necessarily deems free thinkers as counter propagandists. Very interesting.

But note, as I have pointed out from my first appearance here, that the ideological goal is merely a confession of guilt and acquiescence to looming doom -- a doom from which no certain expiation has been offered, except that of Hansen, whom Oreskes lumped in with the denier camp for his nuclear heresy. Next thing she'll want to outlaw the internet. I think I'll go find a cat house to shower and pray. --AGF

AG - Still unable to propose a well-posed question. Surprise. /snark

I've already explored the infinite universe. Sorry, in that case the odds are *NOT* 50-50 but that we will measure a temperature different from today that is colder - the odds are 99.9999% that it will be colder. Of course the 9s after the decimal are infinite.

Your 2nd suggestion also shows the ill-posed nature of your question - different results with different assumptions. Sorry, loser. Only one of the assumptions is correct.

You need a location, a sampling time, and a reference timeframe. You can't provide *one* not one single instance of 50-50. The simplistic ones you have chosen have different answers depending on assumptions. I.e., almost a textbook case of ill-posed.

OHC - crickets chirping. Since you obviously have a difficult time reading, try #213. Please show us the 'pause' in OHC. Please tell us how the earth equals the atmosphere of the surface only.

Please tell us how the 'pause' exists if we remove El Ninos from the data - or if we only compare El Nino years to El Nino years; La Nina years to La Nina years; ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years. I'll keep asking and you'll keep making a fool of yourself.

So you too condone book burning, while implicitly admitting that this is nothing but a propaganda site which necessarily deems free thinkers as counter propagandists. Very interesting.

No. Whether you miss the point due to ignorance, willfully ignore the point, or are simply likely (the last is by far the most likely thing), you are wrong. The notion that you are a thinker of any kind, let alone a "free thinker", is ludicrous, since the ability to think means you have the ability to learn, and you have clearly demonstrated the inability to learn anything.

"Do you burn books too?"

He's not burning the science denial websites.

Chris’s nonexistent “pause”

No-one said the so called "pause" that I'm talking about, viz lack of statistically significant warming in the SURFACE temperature for a climatically insignificant amount of time, e.g. 15 years, does not exist. You're just playing with semantics.

So stop making shit up agf.

Or much more accurately, did not exist.

I wonder what happened to agf's cheap newspaper articles?

Obviously went into the bin wrapped around the kitchen scraps long ago.

nothing but a propaganda site

So now they're calling Science propaganda.

Sounds like something straight out of 1984.

A G Foster apparently has his knickers in a twist because he doesn't get to be Big Brother.

Where does one begin in the company of rabid doomsday cultists who ban the books of their critics? (the skeptics don't do that!) What are they afraid of? Truth?

Well I'll start by eating a little crow: one of my examples was a little off and another way off: daily T. One has to get beyond 40 latitude to have any summer days long enough for warming time to exceed cooling, and as for seasonal warming, the opposite is often, maybe usually the case: the span between min annual T and max is a little longer than the cooling down period, especially in places like San Francisco, surrounded by water.

As for a universe with critical dark matter, it is a closed system, and it's a mystery to me how anyone can suppose that its contraction period could be anything but a thermodynamic mirror image of its expansion. Odds of random warming: 50/50.

KO: "Please tell us how the ‘pause’ exists if we remove El Ninos from the data – or if we only compare El Nino years to El Nino years; La Nina years to La Nina years; ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years."

The relevance escapes me. Do you want to delete the Niño years? Subtract anomalies? But UAH is flat between 2002 and 2014 which span includes no Niños: DENIALIST SITE LINK DELETED

...as it was in all records until recently. The pause or non-pause was worrisome enough for Karl et al that they felt the need to adjust the record once again to make it go away. Still, I'm required to separately link the excuses for it--excuses for something that no longer exists in revisionist history. Here are a few:

The Montreal Protocol (successful reduction of emissions):
http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1999.epdf?referrer_access_token=_OEl…

Reduced solar activity: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=41752

Coverage bias (Cowtan and Way: include the Arctic): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract

I could provide links to different lists but this is very dangerous knowledge which must be kept from the eyes of the uninitiated. And KO knows it's all Niños anyway, and these other warm mongering climatologists don't know anything.

--AGF

On to C O'Neill's fixation with "cheap newspaper articles." They always derive from the pronouncements and conventions of scientists. Plenty of experts are mentioned by name, usually government employed, but Bryson isn't cited in any non-paywalled articles until 1974, so the notion that Bryson got the ball rolling is an invention of C O'Neill's little head. Bryson was the Paul Ehrlich and James Hansen of global cooling: trouble was assured. And Bryson had a considerable following among scientists to varying degrees.

During the 70's it was learned from sediment and ice cores that interglacials were short and onsets of glaciation could be rapid, that we could be due for another big ice age. This recognition coincided with the last and coldest decade of a 30 year long cooling period, widespread tropical famine temperate crop failures. The cooling scare was as ill defined as the warming scare is now--a number of scenarios over disparate time frames could be meant. There was a solid consensus that we were due for another ice age eventually. The current interglacial had lasted already as long as the newly discovered average, and the LIA could well be taken as the new norm, with the warming up to the '40s being anomalous. Armadillos were heading south, polar ice and glaciers and deserts were growing, crops were failing, food stores shrinking, and it was looking like climate could cause trouble. Nor Bryson nor any other expert ignored GHG heating, but it was obviously losing. Bryson blamed pollution: man was to blame. Most were skeptical, preferring to blame the sun or Milankovitch or whatever.

In 1974 the NAS climate convention concluded we don't know enough: the cooling might continue; it might not. 50/50 odds were as good as any. At the end of the year NASA boss James Fletcher NASA boss reported Mariner 9 showed Martian dust storms lowered surface T 20C, "confirming that much more smog aerosol pollution could indeed set off another ice age on Earth" (Fletcher's words).

Back then no climate cult took over the hysteria--they left it for the media, and often the press provided well researched and balanced reports, presenting views differing from Bryson's. So nobody polled the scientists, and nobody labeled the skeptics quacks. Few claimed the science was settled, but nearly all recognized that we were fortunate to be living between ice ages. That remains true today. --AGF

AG writes: "As for a universe with critical dark matter, it is a closed system, and it’s a mystery to me how anyone can suppose that its contraction period could be anything but a thermodynamic mirror image of its expansion. Odds of random warming: 50/50."

Wrong, first - contraction is only a probability in itself. So, only one outcome is correct. But assume that it is correct, then the earth will cease to exist at some point long before a singularity is formed. So, you have - again - failed to prove anything other than your question is ill-posed.

What part of ill-posed don't you understand? If your question leads to multiple different answers, then you need to rephrase the question. Basically, you just keep proving your ignorance over and over again.

You have a religious belief, nothing can prove it wrong. That's why deniers- like yourself - hate science. You don't understand it and it calls into question your deeply held *faith* in your own ideology.

We see the same thing in economics. How many times do we have to rerun the mantra of cutting taxes will reduce the deficit, lift all boats, and give everyone a pony before economic deniers realize it's all a charade? Remeber the doom and gloom that every conservative predicted with Clinton's first budget? Remember the doom and gloom with Obama's? Remember the converse with Dubya's tax cuts and Reagan's?

Reality is known to have a liberal bias - that's why deniers hate reality.

AG writes : "UAH is flat between 2002 and 2014"

Umm - UAH? Which version - and why should we use it instead of some other measure> And is that statistically significant? What is the relevance of a statistically insignificant piece of data? You're really just being stupid.

Not to mention - what's the relevance of temperatures (UAH) at 4km above the surface to anything? It's neither surface temperature nor the *earth's* temperature.

As for "The relevance escapes me. " The so called pause was based on the 1998 El Nino year. If you want to compare trends, without the trend being corrupted up or down by La Nina or El Nino it should be obvious what you do - exactly as I suggested.

AGWis a theory of how the *earth* warms. Again, the atmosphere is a small part of the earth. OHC better reflects the earth's energy budget. Of course you ignore that because there are no denier talking points from trash pseudoskeptic sites that can explain OHC. Where's the pause in OHC? Nowhere to be found.

Endless BS. OHC is calculated from thermometers that supposedly measured thousandths of a degree. It is the shortest and least reliable of T records. Surface T is the most difficult to compile--or replicate--or define. SST reflects the exact problems of OHC that you harp on, suggesting a one to one equivalence between land and sea is arbitrary and meaningless. Satellite measuring of the lower troposphere has the same advantages over ground stations as SAT measured SLR has over tide gauges. You have to be educated from scratch. --AGF

This recognition coincided with the last and coldest decade of a 30 year long cooling period

What are you such a font of shit agf? The data does not enable the 1960s to be claimed as the coldest decade of that 30 year period: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1970/compress:120…

UAH is flat between 2002 and 2014 which span includes no Niños

There were El Niños of various strengths in 2002-03, 2006-07 and 2009-10.

Clearly, agf is trying for the "font of all made up shit" award.

agf:

C O’Neill’s fixation with “cheap newspaper articles.”

Not my fixation. You're the one who's citing them.

By some criteria we are always in either Niño or Niña conditions. Problems of definition are discussed here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/defnBAMS.pdf

And the cooling alarmists were well aware that the SH warmed as the NH cooled:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1940/to:1990
So yes, the decade from 1965 to 1975 was the coolest since 1943 when the NH cooling began.

And that, folks, is the best Chris O'Neill can do. --AGF

AG - Try http://xkcd.com/1606/

Obviously they already anticipated your ill-posed question. But then XKCD has always been good at pointing out stupidity.

4/13 1345GMT
The point source sat around forever and ever. And ever. And then one day it blew up. And expanded forever and ever. And ever. Never to collapse again. Forever.

Genesis does better.

As for the other pinhead named O'Neill, my post hasn't shown up yet. Here is a close approximation:

By some criteria (SOI) we are always in either Niño or Niña conditions. There are big Niños and little ones, with no standard definition of what constitutes a Niño: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997BAMS...78.2771T

The coolers of the '70's had more data and were more interested in NH T than global; they were aware that the small southern land masses were warming. And the decade from 1965-1975 was the NH coldest since 1943: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1940/to:1980/plot/had…
--AGF

The coolers of the ’70’s had more data ...

The fact that you keep repeating the lie that science in the 70s was all about "cooling" reinforces the fact that you are simply a congenital liar with no intention of making a serious discussion.

agf:

By some criteria we are always in either Niño or Niña conditions.

Pity your mind was already made up. Closed minds are like that.

the SH warmed as the NH cooled

So NOW the NH gets mentioned. In any case, there was no significant change in global or any hemispheric temperature from the 1950s to the early 1970s. The last statistically significant cooling period ended in the 1950s.

the cooling alarmists

No-one is denying there were crackpot human-caused cooling alarmists. Funnily enough, even though Bryson claimed humans were going to cause global cooling, he also claimed it was impossible for humans to cause global warming through CO2 emissions. This was in complete contrast to genuine climate scientists like Schneider who stated that possible further global cooling was CONDITIONAL on there being further rises in sulphate aerosol emissions. Brain dead and dishonest global warming denialists like afg ALWAYS forget to mention this condition that Schneider stated. Such denialists are nothing but dishonest scum.

Here's a NH T graph from 1982:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/xtemps82.htm
...showing 0.8C cooling between 1938 and 1972: significant, downhill, coldest last--till the early '70s. They didn't google WFT.

CO: "Funnily enough, even though Bryson claimed humans were going to cause global cooling, he also claimed it was impossible for humans to cause global warming through CO2 emissions."

This is another CO lie. Compare: "Bryson contends that sometime after 1930, the cooling effect of more dust in the atmosphere began to overpower the warming effect of carbon dioxide."
http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ominous%20Changes%…
(p.95, 3rd column)

And another load of BS:
StevoR
Adelaide hills, South Australia
April 5, 2016

Asimov took the threat of cooling seriously, as reported here:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TP1jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LvkDAAAAIBAJ&pg…

Getting the truth out of a doomsday cult that bans the books of skeptics is like pulling badgers' teeth. --AGF

"dean
United States
April 13, 2016
"The coolers of the ’70’s had more data …
"The fact that you keep repeating the lie that science in the 70s was all about “cooling” reinforces the fact that you are simply a congenital liar with no intention of making a serious discussion."

Dean's head is in an unflushed toilet blowing bubbles. He might try reading the articles from PopTech's list and see how many cooling skeptics he can find there or anywhere else. Go ahead you moron, put together a sourced list of global warming warners from the '70s. --AGF

Let's see what the literature says, AGF:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Not that this scientific evidence will change your opinion - your 'sanity' seems to depend on never accepting facts that contradict your opinion - but lurkers may be interested to know the facts.

agf:

showing 0.8C cooling between 1938 and 1972

Stupid dumb clown. Nothing but a brain dead pair of cherry-picks. Absolutely zilch about the claimed accuracy of that graph either. Regardless of your stupid dumb claim, that graph and any other graph does not show any significant change, cooling or warming since the 1950s (1956 to be precise) until the 1970s, as I stated above.

agf:

This is another CO lie.

Arrogant and ignorant clown. Bryson 2007:

"Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, NOT BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE AIR."

1500GMT
Marco cites Peterson, Connolley and Fleck's childish contrivance. Let's take a look:
1) Their chart has Bryson and Dittberner in both the cool and neutral columns just a year apart.
2) It has Schneider in the cool and warm columns 3 years apart.
3) It has Idso in the warm column.
4) Bryson, for one, published about a dozen articles per year. His output alone would overwhelm the sparse scattering of papers presented by PCF.
5) "Warmers" like Mitchell could say (in 1977): "This invites an alternative view of the comparative warmth of the 20th century, as being not a recovery from the Little Ice Age but perhaps only an interruption of it" ("The Changing Climate," p.58).

Budyko was the exception, but he did provide a graph:
http://s90.photobucket.com/user/dhm1353/media/Climate%20Change/budyko_1…
...showing once again what a lying fool is C O'Neill. This perfect retard sees no difference between, "Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, NOT BECAUSE WE’RE PUTTING MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE AIR," and " it was impossible for humans to cause global warming through CO2 emissions."

The evidence from melting glaciers leave no room for doubt that a major portion of current warming is due to LIA recovery: the receding glaciers continue to reveal logs from the MWP that were buried by advancing glaciers. --AGF

More D'oh! from AG. There is no 'recovery' in physics. You have forcings and they determine the earth's energy budget. We don't 'recover' from ice ages - little or otherwise. The forcings change and the earth responds. Jesus, what a nitwit.

AG has gone the full-denier of science again. It is a well-established fact that CO2 and other GHGs warm the earth. Scientists figured this out using pen and paper (not even an abacus!!) between 100 and 200 years ago.

AG should write his treatise on the (lack) of radiative transfer properties of GHGs and his explanation of physics. A Nobel prize awaits.

LOL from here to eternity.

Kevin O'Neill repeatedly insists on proving he's as stupid as his namesake. Take up your mindless semantics with Mitchell, you moron. He's the one who said, " This invites an alternative view of the comparative warmth of the 20th century, as being not a recovery from the Little Ice Age but perhaps only an interruption of it."

And if it's all about forcings, you idiot, tell us what forced the LIA (or unforced it). My hell what a collection of imbecilic trolls hang out here. --AGF

agf:

NOT BECAUSE WE’RE PUTTING MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE AIR,” and ” it was impossible for humans to cause global warming through CO2 emissions.”

You brain dead moron. If global warming is "NOT BECAUSE WE’RE PUTTING MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE AIR" when we're putting it in the air then our CO2 is not causing causing global warming i.e. it is not possible for our CO2 to be causing global warming.

1) Their chart has Bryson and Dittberner in both the cool and neutral columns just a year apart.

We're all agreed that Bryson was a crackpot so nothing surprising about his inconsistency.

2) It has Schneider in the cool and warm columns 3 years apart.

i.e. the first being "the most misinterpreted and mis-used paper in the story of global cooling". It was "the first foray into climate science for Schneider". "Rasool and Schneider were trying to extend the newly developed tool of climate modeling to include the effects of aerosols, in an attempt to sort out two potentially conflicting trends— the warming brought about by increasing carbon dioxide and the cooling potential of aerosols emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere by industrial activity."

"An INCREASE BY A FACTOR OF 4 in global aerosol concentrations, could be enough to trigger an ice age (Rasool and Schneider 1971)." i.e. Rasool and Schneider's prediction was CONDITIONAL on a FACTOR OF 4 INCREASE in global aerosol concentrations. As I pointed out earlier, brain dead and dishonest global warming denialists like afg ALWAYS forget to mention this condition that Schneider stated. Such denialists are nothing but dishonest scum.

3) It has Idso in the warm column.

Idso's a crackpot so who knows what he's capable of.

4) Bryson, for one, published about a dozen articles per year. His output alone would overwhelm the sparse scattering of papers presented by PCF.

No-one disagrees that crackpots, including ones we agree on like Bryson, can be very prolific.

5) “Warmers” like Mitchell could say (in 1977): “This invites an alternative view of the comparative warmth of the 20th century, as being not a recovery from the Little Ice Age but perhaps only an interruption of it” (“The Changing Climate,” p.58).

It must have taken the global warming denialist industry a while to find that quotation out-of-context. Mitchell went on to say:

Beyond such vague statements as these, disturbingly little can be said about the probable course of natural climate in the decades and centuries ahead. Moreover, a number of man’s activities are being ingested by the climate system, adding further uncertainty to an already uncertain future of climate. The need for better understanding of the climate system, in all its aspects, is a clear and present one.

Mitchell was clearly hypothesising above, and he went on to point out the great uncertainty that existed at the time. Global warming denialists like agf are too dumb to understand that scientific uncertainty is not set in stone and can be reduced as time goes by. Just because there were very large uncertainties in climate science in the 1960s and 1970s does not in any way, shape or form mean that we have a similar level of uncertainty now, especially about the long term global temperature trend.

Budyko was the exception

No, Budyko was the rule, i.e. most climate scientists in the 70s were expecting a global warming trend. Your crackpot friend Bryson was the exception. And BTW, Budyko's graph does not contradict my point about no significant hemispheric or global cooling since 1956. The statistically significant global cooling occurred before and up to 1956. Significant cooling died in 1956. R.I.P. statistically significant global cooling 1956.

This isn't even funny anymore. C O'N has now invalidated PCF because the papers were written by quacks. And Schneider wasn't a true cooler because his scenarios were unrealistic.

There comes a time when you have to call it quits. C O'N can throw out bullshit faster than I can clean it up. Anyone who can't see through it, well, you're destined to remain a doomsday cult fanatic. If I were to demand of this particular doomsday cultist a few examples of predictors of global warming from the 70s--not of possibilities but prognoses of dangerous warming--he would just ignore it and blow more smoke. And listen up any seekers of truth: this is the norm; this has been the modus operandi from top to bottom for 30 years now. They have to ban the dangerous websites to keep their deluded fanatics deluded. --AGF

what forced the LIA

That would be the moderate amount of orbital forcing over the past 1,000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing

agf is as ignorant as they come. Arrogant in spite of that too.

AG - either GHGs have (well established) forcing properties or they don't. Which is it? You claim they don't - contravening two centuries of scientific study. That's the little nuthouse you live in.

1600GMT
C O'Neill: "That would be the moderate amount of orbital forcing over the past 1,000 years."
Sure. Find a single authority that agrees with you.
Problems:
1) How many W/m^2 has insolation been reduced in the last thousand years at what critical latitude?
2) With orbital forcing the southern hemisphere receives more insolation while the north receives less. Yet the LIA was global, not northern.
3) What caused the warmth before and after the LIA?
4) What about TSI?
5) What about North American depopulation?
Arrogance? Yup.

K O'Neill: Straw man. Salby is an outlier, criticized by Singer here: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giv…

Where do you get the silly notion that skeptics uniformly deny your sacred physics? The alarm is not based on primary forcing; it's based on hypothetical feedbacks.

But the primary forcing should be seen empircally in the lower troposphere, which is another reason UAH is critical. If UAH don't measure it, it aint happening. Moreover we expect divergence between surface T and TLT, and all we see is convergence, apparently due to repeated adjustments.

"Nuthouse," says the doomsday cultist who approves the banning of books of the free thinkers. And who must be educated from scratch. --AGF

"Marco cites Peterson, Connolley and Fleck’s childish contrivance. Let’s take a look:"

Ah, the dismissal because the result is not to AGF's liking.

" 1) Their chart has Bryson and Dittberner in both the cool and neutral columns just a year apart."

That's what happens if they say something different just one year apart.

" 2) It has Schneider in the cool and warm columns 3 years apart."

Ibid.

" 3) It has Idso in the warm column."

That's because Idso actually predicted warming.

" 4) Bryson, for one, published about a dozen articles per year. His output alone would overwhelm the sparse scattering of papers presented by PCF."

Well then, go ahead, cite those papers of Bryson in the investigated time period in which he predicted cooling. It must be easy if he published about a dozen a year. There is a good reason you will not find many papers: Bryson did a lot of work on paleoclimate and *not* on future climate.

agf:

This isn’t even funny anymore.

You were never very funny. Mainly just stupid.

C O’N has now invalidated PCF because the papers were written by quacks.

Where did I say the papers were written by quacks (apart from Bryson and Idso)? You're just making shit up as usual.

Schneider wasn’t a true cooler

No shit Sherlock. But that doesn't stop some science denialists from pretending that Schneider was a 70’s scientist "predicting the next ice age".

faster than I

Take your time. If you weren't so interested in making speedy responses then they might not have so much crap in them.

Anyone who can’t see through it

Just a pity you can't actually argue it.

If I were to demand a few examples of predictors of global warming from the 70s–not of possibilities but prognoses of dangerous warming

You're funny. The only substance we ever got from you clowns were predictions from the 70s of the CONDITIONAL possibility of global cooling but now that you no longer deny that's all you've got, you move the goalposts onto demanding predictions from the 70s of dangerous warming. Sorry but I'm not going to take your bait. Your claims of scientists "from the 70’s (unconditionally) predicting the next ice age" have been shown to be a completely dishonest sham and there is no point in trying to move on until denialists have disowned this dishonest sham. Have you disowned the dishonest sham of scientists "from the 70’s (unconditionally) predicting the next ice age" yet?

Until you do you can get lost.

the moderate amount of orbital forcing over the past 1,000 years.”
Sure. Find a single authority that agrees with you

It's just amazing. These science denialists like to say "it's the Sun" when it suits them but then when circumstances change they turn around and say "find a single authority" that says it's the Sun.

You just can't make up self-contradiction like this.

Anyway, Imbrie stated a cooling trend from the Milankovitch cycles that started 6,000 years ago: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980Sci...207..943I

The wikipedia article on Milankovitch cycles also has other citations e.g. "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling" by Kaufman et al.

0330GMT
C O'N: "Anyway, Imbrie stated a cooling trend from the Milankovitch cycles that started 6,000 years ago"
Yet the LIA followed the MWP and was followed by early 20th century warming. So what do you think you've explained, you moron? Of such intellect are the doomsday cultists.

And Marco is no better. Marco, pinhead, Bryson didn't change from warmer to cooler and back to warmer from year to year. You show that they did--I'm not stupid enough to believe such nonsense. And neither are PCF: they're just a bunch of liars who figured they could say anything and get away with it, with gullible doomsday cultists like you to eat it up. --AGF

AG the Denier writes; " The alarm is not based on primary forcing; it’s based on hypothetical feedbacks."

Wrong. The *physics* is based on primary forcing *and* associated feedbacks. There, fixed that for you.

So, you accept the forcings of CO2, a GHG, but deny the forcings of water vapor, a GHG. ?!?

Meanwhile, the globe warms, all denier memes lose traction, and the beat goes on. Cooling anyday now. Really, anyday.

Much like the screams of hyperinflation, skyrocketing interest rates, dollar debasement, and job destruction from the ACA or stimulus package. Always wrong. Always on the wrong side of history.

Economic reality deniers and climate change deniers are two peas in a pod. Very small, not very bright peas.

It's the sun! It's cosmic rays! It's the wind! It's anything but CO2.

AG - if it ain't CO2, then what is the primary forcing causing 2015/2016 temperatures to be so much higher than the 97/98 El Nino?

agf:

Yet the LIA followed the MWP and was followed by early 20th century warming.

Stupid, I told you the type of forcing that could have led to the LIA. Yet again you move the goalposts and ask about something else. I'll pander to you this time because you are so incredibly stupid. GHG forcing didn't become sufficient to cause statistically significant global warming until at least the 21 year period 1917-1938. (1917 was a cold year.) So you can go to hell with your stupidity on this subject now.

Bryson didn’t change from warmer to cooler and back to warmer from year to year.

Amazing. You defend your agreed crackpot. A consequence of your stupidity.

It’s the sun!

Or in the case of the LIA, it's not the sun!

"Marco, pinhead, Bryson didn’t change from warmer to cooler and back to warmer from year to year."

He changed his views in the articles in that period. It's that simple. You can read the papers yourself. Of course, it is much easier for you to just dismiss it, because your poor ideology cannot handle facts that are contrary to your ideology.

The fact is that *you* are the one that is a pinhead, and *you* think you can just get away with lying.

This is you, AGF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJh6EQ5gv7g
"rest assured, Hy Brasil is not sinking"

That's it... AG the Denier is really just a comic actor. Come here to practice, that's all.

0600GMT
K O'Neill: "So, you accept the forcings of CO2, a GHG, but deny the forcings of water vapor, a GHG. ?!?"

Of course I never said anything remotely similar, but straw men and lies are the best he can babble. O'Niell you indescribably retarded idiot, if water vapor or clouds provided any feedback like the doomsayers predicted, why do 97% of the models run hot? And I repeat, you fool, I never said CO2 doesn't do anything. That's just a mindless doomsday dogma, held by religious fanatics. I said, most skeptics allow for primary GHG forcing. NOBODY agrees on any figure for ECS. Do you understand the significance of that, you fool? Your camp has never agreed on how much feedback GHG's should produce. Why else do you think the models are all over the place, you idiot?

The other O'Neill persists in even greater stupidity (if that were possible), claiming I moved the goal posts. I asked what forced the LIA, K O says orbital cycles, which is what Bryson and Kukla and the rest of the coolers said, and what Mitchell allowed for. If that were true we would certainly be due for another LIA or big one in short order, but there is no danger of KO's head exploding--he's far to stupid to recognize his own tail. Hey idiot--what caused the MWP? You have to be able to answer that before you can answer the other question. You're absolutely hopeless.

One idiot to go--Marco: "He changed his views in the articles in that period. It’s that simple."

No commentary necessary. Fools are never aware that they are fools. Even so I might engage in a little civility if I were not dealing with perpetual liars who don't know the meaning of the word. --AGF

"AG the Denier is really just a comic actor."

I wonder how likely it is he is an engineer. More than a few times we've had instances where the limited knowledge of science fails to muzzle the stupid and flat-out wrong stuff they've said.

If so, the odds are that he's an electrical engineer. They seem to be the most avid at biting off the hand that's fed them their careers. Quite hypocritical, and somewhat astonishing.

What is it about EE's that the field attracts so many hugely insecure types?

There is another explanation, suggested by Og himself: "Fools are never aware that they are fools." I think he's trying to self-diagnose as an advanced case of pernicious Dunning-Kruger disease.

agf:

I never said CO2 doesn’t do anything. That’s just a mindless doomsday dogma

How would CO2 not doing anything cause a doomsday? Surely if increasing it does not cause it to get any warmer than it is now then there would be no doomsday. You are seriously illogical.

I asked what forced the LIA, K O says orbital cycles

It was me who pointed out orbital forcing. You have a memory problem too as well as a logic problem. You really are all-round stupid.

If that were true we would certainly be due for another LIA or big one in short order

Certainty is a symptom of stupidity. agf is too stupid to consider that CO2 forcing can change faster than orbital forcing.

I still haven't seen agf disown the dishonest sham of scientists “from the 70’s (unconditionally) predicting the next ice age” yet, even though he chooses not to get lost.

"No commentary necessary."

And yet you give commentary *without even having read the articles in question*. This is typical of people like you: you are so afraid that the facts contradict you, that you have no option but to make stuff up, such that it soothes your mind and you can retain your preferred delusions.

I also would like to note for lurkers that AGF completely ignored my challenge to find all those scientific papers by Bryson that predict cooling, even though it should be so easy if AGF is right. After all, AGF claims Bryson published a dozen a year in the period in question, and that those should be enough to dismiss the results in the paper I cited.

Certainty is a symptom of stupidity. It's also a key characteristic of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell

@253. A G Foster :

And another load of BS: StevoR - April 5, 2016

Asimov took the threat of cooling seriously, as reported here:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TP1jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LvkDAAAAIBAJ&pg…

Actually no.. That;s not Isaac Asimov that's the editor of the Spokane Daily Chronicle misrepresenting Asimov's book and overlooking the fact that Asimov was NOT in fact predicting global cooling but quite the reverse. The book also covered a lot of other things with only a passing reference to possible ice ages and possible solutions rather than saying it was anything truly likely.

I've already referred you to Isaac Asimov's own words on this issue here in 1977 but, once again, watch :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz1g55H6XgA

& in 1989 here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEPhf0SHQEk

What part of what Isaac Asimov said in those clips and others do you not understand exactly?

I also refer you again to the actual quotes from the book itself noted in my comment # 219.

Furthermore, I'll add - looking at the actual text - that Asimov has a footnote at the bottom of page 311 which reads :

To be sure, the greenhouse effect is countered by the fact that industrial activity is also putting more dust into the air. This causes the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back into space than it ordinarily would, and this would tend to cool the Earth. Indeed, we have had some unusually cold winters in the 1970's. In the end though, the warming effect of the carbon dioxide is sure to win the race - especially if we take measures to clean up the atmosphere when its pollution reaches dangerous levels.

(Emphasis added.)

Source : Pages 311, ‘A Choice of Catastrophes : The disasters that threaten our world', Isaac Asimov, Hutchinson & co, 1979.

Asimov was, as we now know correct and farsighted here in accurately explaining both the phenomenon of global dimming and global warming and predicting that the later would indeed win out over the former.

Getting the truth out of a doomsday cult that bans the books of skeptics is like pulling badgers’ teeth. –AGF

What do you know of pulling out badgers teeth? What a weird metaphor you make & whatever have badgers ever done to you (or you them) I wonder?

And who here has called for books to be banned?

Not giving another online platform to promote Denier disinformation and websites is another thing altogether.

@279. Marco :

I also would like to note for lurkers that AGF completely ignored my challenge to find all those scientific papers by Bryson that predict cooling, even though it should be so easy if AGF is right. After all, AGF claims Bryson published a dozen a year in the period in question, and that those should be enough to dismiss the results in the paper I cited.

Yes indeed - and there's a lot of other challenge sand facts that AGF keeps ignoring too.

Come on Foster, how about actually addressing the challenge Marco raised there and the challenge pose din #270 by Kevin O'Neill :

1. So, you accept the forcings of CO2, a GHG, but deny the forcings of water vapor, a GHG. ?!?

&

2. AG – if it ain’t CO2, then what is the primary forcing causing 2015/2016 temperatures to be so much higher than the 97/98 El Nino?

Plus

3. Have you disowned the dishonest sham of scientists “from the 70’s (unconditionally) predicting the next ice age” yet?

From #267 Chris O'Neill.

Among other things.

Badger got your tongue /typing fingers now AGF?

PS. From the Spokane daily Chronicle editorial linked in #253 by AGF and included in the quote from that in #281 - third paragraph :

The author claims that a change in the average temperature of only one or two degrees could trigger the next ice age, but chances are that such a catastrophy (sic) would not occur for a couple of thousand more years.

Emphasis added.

Additionally, the penultimate paragraph notes :

.. the author suggest that men in the future may even use giant mirrors, placed in near space, to reflect sunlight that ordinarily would miss the earth (sic) onto earth (sic) during the cooling phases and reflect sun rays away from earth (sic) if ice-melting threatens.

Emphasis added.

(As I understand it, Earth should be capitalised being a proper name and to distinguish from a synonym for soil.)

Again, this is an editorial which basically misrepresents and over emphasises one small part of an excellent book speculating on various potential future catastrophes of many sorts including entropy over astronomical aeons, the heat death of the cosmos, the (then expected) "big Crunch"idea, black holes destroying or disrupting our solar system and planet, the chances of our Sun colliding with another star, asteroid and comet impacts and changes, etc .. from a scientific perspective.

0330GMT

Still searching for intelligent life. StevoR quotes Kevin O'Neill saying: "1. So, you accept the forcings of CO2, a GHG, but deny the forcings of water vapor, a GHG. ?!?"

I repeat, idiot, I never said any such thing. If you don't believe me try to find where I said such a thing as the pinhead Kevin claims I said. How can you be so stupid?

So if you can't even get that right why should I take your word over the Spokane editor who reports Asimov took the cooling threat just as seriously as he took the warming threat in his book, " A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World"?

As for PCF, I must speak as to children. The issue is alarmism. PopTech addresses this issue admirably. PCF barely touches it. Alarm is part and parcel of the press, not of scientific papers. Accordingly PCF intentionally confuse parameters to make a case that there was no cooling alarm in the 70s.

How does Idso end up in the warmers' column? By publishing to the effect that aerosols can't explain present cooling (like Mitchell). He thought aerosols would combine with CO2 to warm the air. For PCF that merits a warm ranking, when in fact Idso's position on pollution left the cooling period unexplained: neither CO2 nor aerosols were sufficient to stop the cooling, and pollution control couldn't help. At least Bryson had a solution: stop polluting. Idso and Mitchell had none. And according to a later historian: "While Mitchell continued to insist that humanity was 'an innocent bystander' in the cooling of the past quarter-century, in 1971 he calculated that our emissions might begin to cause substantial cooling after the end of the
century" (p.8, notes 3, 5: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/pdf/Aerosol.pdf --this paper doesn't make it into PCF) .

Returning to the pedagogy, a sampling which can at any time portray Bryson as a warmer is a farce, pure and simple. This does not have to be explained to intelligent people. When the radical cooler Bryson shows up in a neutral column, a capable thinker naturally asks, what gives? Did Bryson go on a forced sabbatical? Was he made to recant while muttering under his breath, but it's really cooling? Did he find some flaw in his earlier calculations which he later resolved? I leave it to you idiots to explain it. Thinkers have better things to do. --AGF

AG - who wrote "“Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, NOT BECAUSE WE’RE PUTTING MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE AIR,”

Hmm ... seems like a denial of the radiative transfer properties of GHGs to me.

agf:

It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution

You're just making shit up as usual. The industrial revolution was starting in a lot of countries in the early 1800s (even before 1800 in Great Britain). Also, there was zero trend in global temperature from 1850 to 1910, let alone anything statistically significant. So even with the early CO2 emissions to help, "coming out of the Little Ice Age" was producing ZERO global warming over that period.

It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution

Actually, that quote originally came from Bryson. Sadly, although probably not surprisingly, Bryson was not beyond making things up.

agf:

a sampling which can at any time portray Bryson as a warmer

Unless you can show where in PCF Bryson was portrayed as a "warmer", I will know yet again that you are making shit up.

Bryson shows up in a neutral column

Here is the first page of Bryson's piece from 1974. People can make up their own mind about what Bryson was saying but I can't see anything in that about any prediction for the future.

In any case, who cares if you put everything Bryson wrote in the coolers' column? It might inflate the number of "scientific" papers in "support" of cooling "predictions" but that just means that the cooling "prediction" papers column is heavily populated by papers from someone who everyone agrees was a crackpot. This is hardly supportive of the notion of a "scientific consensus" of a cooling prediction. Just means the cooling prediction was the prediction of an agreed crackpot.

How does Idso end up in the warmers’ column?

Pretty easy to find the answer to that question (unless you're stupid like agf). Just look up the paper's abstract:

"Thus, anthropogenically produced tropospheric aerosols cannot be looked on as offsetting the warming tendency of increased carbon dioxide: their concurrent buildups must inexorably tend to warm the planet's surface."

So it's pretty easy to answer agf's question, unless you're stupid like agf of course.

@284. A G Foster :

Still searching for intelligent life. StevoR quotes Kevin O’Neill saying: “1. So, you accept the forcings of CO2, a GHG, but deny the forcings of water vapor, a GHG. ?!?”

I repeat, idiot, I never said any such thing.

So do you accept the forcings of carbon dioxide and not deny the forcing - feedback actually - of water vapour?

Was that a "yes" or 'no"then?

Still seeking intelligence from you, dude.

Also what;s your answer to the other two questions I asked you in comment #282 - and what do you have against badgers anyhow?

0625GMT

Both O'Neill's persist in attributing to me a quote that C O'Neill introduced and attributed to Bryson at #256. And StevoR attributes a quote to me which K O'Neill invented at #270. So far everyone who's engaged me in discussion has proved a liar. Even when C O'Neill quotes me correctly he ignores the context: "Returning to the pedagogy, a sampling which can at any time portray Bryson as a warmer is a farce, pure and simple. This does not have to be explained to intelligent people. When the radical cooler Bryson shows up in a neutral column, a capable thinker naturally asks, what gives?"

Calling Bryson a "warmer" would be hypothetical; showing up in a "neutral column" would be factual. And any who look at CO's link will see that the "neutral" classification is more than stretched: it's typical PCF bullshit.

And StevoR demands some kind of confession from KO's invention! Could it get any stupider? What a waste of time arguing with such an unparalleled collection of lying jackasses.

There were plenty of cold alarmists besides Bryson. There were NO warming alarmists in the 70s--only a few non-alarmist warmers like Budyko. The cold scare of the '70s was precisely analogous to the warm scare of the present and none of the deniers' denials can make the old cold scare go away, no matter how much they lie. --AGF

agf:

O’Neill’s persist in attributing to me a quote that C O’Neill introduced and attributed to Bryson at #256

No I DON'T. I pointed out immediately afterwards:

"Actually, that quote originally came from Bryson. Sadly, although probably not surprisingly, Bryson was not beyond making things up."

Along with your other incompetencies, you also have a persistent reading problem.

Also, I don't directly attribute it to Bryson. I cited Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News who attribute it to Bryson.

everyone who’s engaged me in discussion has proved a liar

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Calling Bryson a “warmer” would be hypothetical

So your hypothesis that Bryson was a "warmer" is a farce. I don't think anyone disagrees that your statements are a farce.

And any who look at CO’s link will see that the “neutral” classification is more than stretched

All you had to do was point out the words that Bryson used for a cooling prediction. The fact that you didn't means he probably didn't put one in that article. But what do I care? You can put every last damned paper by Bryson in the cooling column if you want. We agree that he's a crackpot so his cooling predictions don't mean jack shit. But that didn't stop newspapers from using him as a "scientist predicting global cooling".

There were plenty of cold alarmists besides Bryson.

You're a compulsive liar agf. Apart from crackpot Bryson, you have identified exactly ZERO climate scientists who UNCONDITIONALLY predicted cooling.

There were NO warming alarmists in the 70s

You're such a compulsive liar agf. Bolin 1976:

“The growing disturbance of the global balance of carbon dioxide is without doubt mankind’s GREATEST SINGLE IMPACT on the environment”

non-alarmist warmers like Budyko

WTF is a "non-alarmist" warmer?

BTW, thanks for acknowledging my answer to your question about how Idso ended up in the warmers’ column. Pity you're not capable of answering your own questions.

AG - I didn't attribute the quote to you, I started it with "AG – who wrote ..."

It was a question. You, unfortunately, never clearly attributed the quote. I couldn't tell if they were your words or Brysons's. But the fact remains, you used the quote to support your argument. Generally one uses information one *agrees* with to support one's arguments - otherwise one is arguing in bad faith.

Now, if you disagree with Bryson on CO2 and the radiative properties of GHGs it's very easy to clear things up by saying so. Of course you haven't/can't/won't do so.

Thanks for playing.

1600GMT
Pulling a leg out of coolist alarm does not make Idso a warmer; it makes him a realist. The alarmists don't care much whether it's warming or cooling. They just want to sound alarm bells: we're doomed, we're doomed, and it's all our fault. Here are some simultaneous parameters:
1) Warmer/cooler
2) Alarmist vs. agnostic
3) Modeler vs. observer
The alarmists of either stripe tend to be modelers while the agnostics are observers, epitomized by Bryson's partner and rival, Verner E. Suomi, a pioneer in satellite weather data. Idso, Lindzen, and Landsberg, among others, were cautious and critical of the doomsayers, as Idso and Lindzen continue to be.

A more rational appraisal than PCF would take to task doomsayers of any stripe, and not pick and choose criteria for the moment which ultimately have little to do with the study of science induced hysteria. For example, if an Idso paper is rated (uncharacteristically) warmist for downplaying the effect of aerosols, then a Budyko paper which accepts the cooling effect of aerosols, together with a high sensitivity of ice ages to minimal temperature changes (Budyko 68), should be listed in the warm column: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1969.tb00466.x/p…
By the same token when North, or Lindzen and Farrell take issue with the overly sensitive and ice prone models of Budyko and Sellers, they should be classed with the skeptical Idso, when of course Lindzen and Idso we really skeptical of climate instability generally.

So we see again the farce that is PCF: as political advocacy it is useless to the history of science. Its intention is purely to obfuscate, to neutralize the rhetorically useful analogy of the cold scare to the warm scare. It is the forerunner to the junk science of Cook and Lewandowsky which the modern alarmists so gullibly advertise. It fails to provide or adhere to any logical criteria or definitions; it merely goes through the motions--sufficient to brainwash the masses.

Even Mercer was nothing of the radical warmist that Hansen is. The IPCC could swallow Mercer; Hansen's doom gets short shrift. As do his solutions. So I repeat, it matters little whether we sucker for the likes of PCF if nobody takes Hansen's solutions seriously. --AGF

1610GMT
Crap. I meant to say, " then a Budyko paper which accepts the cooling effect of aerosols, together with a high sensitivity of ice ages to minimal temperature changes (Budyko 68), should be listed in the COLD column."

KO: "Now, if you disagree with Bryson on CO2 and the radiative properties of GHGs it’s very easy to clear things up by saying so. Of course you haven’t/can’t/won’t do so."

KO, you don't even know what Bryson's views were. You are not capable of posing a question worth addressing. None of you are. Nobody agrees on ECS. Nobody knows what fraction of modern warming is natural LIA recovery or GHG induced. Most skeptics would attach a non-negative value to it, as would Bryson. You're a waste of time. --AGF

agf falls back on the creationist action when caught repeatedly in lies and misrepresentations: "you just don't understand reality"

It's pretty fair to say this moron has been bested.

1715GMT
Does anyone have a clue what "dean" is talking about?

"Nobody knows what fraction of modern warming is natural LIA recovery or GHG induced."

AGF: The gift that keeps on giving.

AG - completely ignores the point that he was quoting someone (? Bryson) in support of his denier argument. Now, AG, were you arguing in bad faith by quoting a statement you disagree with or are you a CO2/GHG denier?

Thanks for playing.

P.S. - it should be noted that the Bryson quote AG used has ALL CAPS that were not in the original.

Hmmm ... one might infer that AG was trying to emphasize his CO2 is not warming the planet denier views - but of course we'll never know since he refuses to actually state his position.

A reasonable person will of course remember that if it looks like a denier, walks like a denier, sounds like a denier - it's probably AG ... er, a denier :)

agf:

does not make Idso a warmer

Stupid moron. The PCF list was not a list of people it was a list of papers and what those papers said.

then a Budyko paper which accepts the cooling effect of aerosols, together with a high sensitivity of ice ages to minimal temperature changes (Budyko 68), should be listed in the cold column

Aside from Budyko 68 probably stating the CONDITIONAL effect of aerosols, it was from 1968. Last time I checked, 1968 was not in the 1970s which is what the PCF list is about. Amazing the crap that agf tries to make into an argument.

North, or Lindzen and Farrell should be classed with

Stupid clown. The list was about papers, not people. I guess when you have your lies pointed out, e.g.

There were plenty of cold alarmists besides Bryson.

You’re a compulsive liar agf. Apart from crackpot Bryson, you have identified exactly ZERO climate scientists who UNCONDITIONALLY predicted cooling.

There were NO warming alarmists in the 70s

You’re such a compulsive liar agf. Bolin 1976:

“The growing disturbance of the global balance of carbon dioxide is without doubt mankind’s GREATEST SINGLE IMPACT on the environment”

then the only thing you're capable of is trying to hide your lies with a smokescreen of non-sequiturs. You're pathetic.

0240GMT
There are two kinds of people here, those who drool out of the left side of their mouth and those who drool out the right. I just don't see anyone or anything worth responding to. I'm swimming in slobber. --AGF

@291. A G Foster : You still haven't really answered that question regardless of who the quote was from.

As #293 Kevin O'Neill correctly noted.

You also have failed to answer the second question from #282 :

2. AG – if it ain’t CO2, then what is the primary forcing causing 2015/2016 temperatures to be so much higher than the 97/98 El Nino?

Please do so.

Meanwhile in related news from reality :

Last month marked the hottest March in modern history and the 11th consecutive month in which a monthly global temperature record has been broken, US officials say. Officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that the string of record-setting months is the longest in its 137 years of record-keeping. ... (snip) .. Planet-wide, the average temperature was 1.22 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average of 12.7C, NOAA's report said.

"This surpassed the previous record set in 2015 by 0.58F (0.32C), and marks the highest monthly temperature departure among all 1,635 months on record."

Source : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/hottest-march-in-modern-times/734…

1350GMT
StevoR:
What on earth would make you ask whether I or Bryson or any other CACC skeptic doubts the GHG effect of water vapor? It overwhelms CO2, as the realists have been saying for decades, and there is very little CO2 IR bandwidth not covered by water vapor. Water vapor and cloud feedback have always been the great unknowns which the alarmists assumed to be positive and significant, but which time has shown to be fairly insignificant.

As for the T rise in this Niño year SAT measured TLT is the highest measured--over its short history. But when NOAA depicted the radiosonde record to prove it, it left the first 20 years off the graph (google "Real Science" + "noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/"). 1959 was warmer than 2015. 1943 was not doubt hotter still.

Why does NOAA do that? It's no different from NASA GISS, which was run for years by James Hansen. Hansen and Obama have done to NASA and NOAA what Obama has done to DOJ: https://pjmedia.com/blog/every-single-one-since-2009-obamas-doj-civil-r… (or google: "Every Single One: Since 2009, Obama's DOJ Civil Rights Division Hired ONLY Leftist Lawyers(Hundreds!) " ). GISSTEMP has been fiddled with to the point that it is good for warmist propaganda only, as the Carl et al fiasco proved beyond doubt.

So supposedly unprecedented warming which is not unprecedented according to radiosondes or unadjusted surface T needs no apology by way of GHG forcing or LIA recovery or big Niños or PDO or AMO or any other natural cause. ECS to a CO2 doubling remains unknown.

And many glaciers continue to uncover MWP forests as they melt, in both hemispheres. --AGF

"What on earth would make you ask whether I or Bryson or any other CACC skeptic doubts...."

Any other what skeptic?

" It overwhelms CO2, as the realists have be...."

The what has been saying?

What language are you writing to write in?

"Aside from Budyko 68 probably stating the CONDITIONAL effect of aerosols, it was from 1968. Last time I checked, 1968 was not in the 1970s which is what the PCF list is about. Amazing the crap that agf tries to make into an argument."

Well gosh, it's not as if he had a valid argument; he needs to use an imaginary one.

The fact of the matter is that the few climatologists who wrote about the cooling effects of aerosols in the late 1960s and early 1970s all qualified their cooling projections on the likelihood that humanity would continue to spew sulfides into the atmosphere unchecked. Most climatologists agreed the warming effects of CO2 would be much greater than the cooling effects of SO2---- and gosh, they were 100% correct.

AGF doesn't know that Tony Heller is either really stupid or really evil. What he showed for that older radiosonde data is only the 100 mb level *where the stratosphere contributes significantly to the signal* and which is far above the other levels shown by NOAA.

Now, why is that important? Of course, since you are so smart, AGF, you will know that the stratosphere is expected to cool when the troposphere warms due to an increased GHG forcing. Oh dear...Tony Heller provides you with data that *supports AGW*!

When you use radiosonde data for the troposphere you get this:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/ratpac850.jpeg

1645GMT
Marco: What will you do with the first chart which shows 1/16 as hottest ever only at 500mb?

Desertphile: The PCF chart starts in 1965. Aerosols were one of several lines of argument: 1) Insolation was steadily decreasing; 2) The present interglacial had already outlasted the average; 3) interglacials could end suddenly; 4) the LIA could be taken as a precursor to the norm. I already pointed out that Idso and Budyko rejected the efficacy of aerosols. I might point out that Hansen among many continues to blame the cool decades on aerosols, in spite of the fact that Asia has probably outmatched the previous output of the West. I think the consensus was that aerosols could usher in the next ice age sooner than it would otherwise arrive, just as GHG's might be expected to delay the next big ice age or LIA. --AGF

Moving the goalposts there, AGF?

Come on, just admit it, you were fooled by Tony Heller, you know it, and you are embarrassed.

1850GMT
Well Marco, one way to tell would be to extend the surface to 100mb graph to the present, and show that it's compatible with ratpac850-300 (which it isn't). Go for it. For the lazy here's where 2015 rates by altitude:
• Radiosonde data (58 yr record)
– ~5,000 ft (850mb): 2nd warmest
– ~10,000 ft (700mb): 3rd warmest
– ~18,000 ft (500mb): warmest
– ~30,000 ft (300mb): 2nd warmest
– ~40,000 ft (200mb): 14th warmest
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201601.pdf
(bottom). So would 2015 top an extension of surface to 100mb? Not very likely. Something's fishy at NOAA.
--AGF

GISSTEMP has been fiddled

along with HadCRUT4, Berkeley, NOAA, JMA, Karl, etc, etc. They're all part of the global conspiracy y'know.

agf:

I already pointed out that Idso rejected the efficacy of aerosols.

A dishonest claim by agf as usual. Because they demonstrate his dishonesty and contradict his claim of NO warming alarmist (scientists) in the 70s, agf cannot bring himself to quote Idso's words:

"Thus, anthropogenically produced tropospheric aerosols cannot be looked on as offsetting the warming tendency of increased carbon dioxide: their concurrent buildups MUST INEXORABLY tend to warm the planet’s surface.”

Idso only rejected the efficacy of aerosols relative to the INEXORABLE warming from carbon dioxide.

you are embarrassed

Agf doesn't get embarrassed. He's completely shameless.

agf:

one way to tell would be to extend the surface to 100mb graph to the present

Stupid clown. Doesn't even realise that 100mb is usually well into the Stratosphere.

1400GMT
CO says: "Thus, anthropogenically produced tropospheric aerosols cannot be looked on as offsetting the warming tendency of increased carbon dioxide: their concurrent buildups MUST INEXORABLY tend to warm the planet’s surface."

The poor drooler will never understand the meaning of the words "tend" or "quantify." Nobody disputes such a statement, least of all Idso at any point in his career. And yet Idso and son are renowned skeptics. Will that ever register in CO's brain? Nope. --AGF

He’s completely shameless.

Or he's too socially primitive to accept that his attempts at saving face are just making him look ridiculous--the core of head in the sand denial.

At this point you're just talking to agf ostrich butt.

@306.A G Foster :

StevoR: What on earth would make you ask whether I or Bryson or any other CACC skeptic doubts the GHG effect of water vapor? ..

Your comments here upthread.

.. It overwhelms CO2, as the realists have been saying for decades, and there is very little CO2 IR bandwidth not covered by water vapor. Water vapor and cloud feedback have always been the great unknowns which the alarmists assumed to be positive and significant, but which time has shown to be fairly insignificant.

Oh my FSM seriously ya schmuck? No. See :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&ind…

From back in 2009 - but entertainingly and memorably explaining an accurate scientific explanation that goes back much further.

Just how dumb exactly do you think climatologists are, dude? Just how ignorant of scientific facts and history here are you?

Why does NOAA do that? It’s no different from NASA GISS, which was run for years by James Hansen.

Because they're actual climatologists and scientists who know what they are talking about and doing? Nah, couldn't be could it?

(Do I really need a sarc tag?)

Obama? Pretty sure he had nothing to do with doing any actual science here but if you know about any peer reviewed paper he's published - as opposed to just listened to and respected, then please let me know.

And many glaciers continue to uncover MWP forests as they melt, in both hemispheres. –AGF

Many glaciers, melting, in both hemispheres. hmm .. now I wonder why that might be?

(Also citation needed - even just name say five specific examples of such petrified forests?)

Oh & again, what do you think explains the current global overheating if it isn't being caused by GHG emissions from Humanity?

" So would 2015 top an extension of surface to 100mb? Not very likely. "

Of course it would be unlikely, since at 100 mb you are looking at the stratospheric contribution, which is expected (and shown) to cool when the troposphere warms due to GHG forcing. Hence also the reason 200 mb is so low on the list for 2015: stratospheric contamination in the signal.

I explained that to you before, but unexpectedly, this apparently went straight over your head. After all, it contradicts what you hold as true.

agf:

the meaning of the words “tend”

Talk about brain-dead.

tend: " to usually do a particular thing"

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/tend

Stick to lying agf. You won't look quite so dumb e.g. this is a good lie:

There were plenty of cold alarmists besides Bryson.

1730GMT
Let me repeat myself:

A G Foster

April 19, 2016
0240GMT
There are two kinds of people here, those who drool out of the left side of their mouth and those who drool out the right. I just don’t see anyone or anything worth responding to. I’m swimming in slobber. –AGF

2010GMT

StevoR thinks I'm making up the "petrified" trees (of course they're not petrified, being only a few centuries old). All the doomsday cultists have to be educated from scratch. Here are some samples:

Mendenhall Glacier:
http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen…
Exit Glacier:
http://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%2…
Jorge Montt Glacier:
http://www.clim-past.net/8/403/2012/cp-8-403-2012.pdf
Bering Glacier (p.ix):
https://books.google.com/books?id=TlZG658NZYcC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=dating…
Eight glaciers from Prince William Sound (all with forest remnants):
http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/1999b_Holocene.pdf
A collection of Canadian glaciers:
http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf
Five Patagonian glaciers:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222560014_Little_Ice_Age_fluctu…
And Holocene remnants generally (from western Canada), including MWP (Table 2):
http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf

All these glaciers have uncovered remnants of ancient forests which grew when the world was much warmer, before the LIA just a few centuries ago. That’s why glaciologists reject CRU’s temperature reconstructions generally, as far back as Groves and Switzur 1994: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf

…and continuing till the present. –AGF

2200GMT
================
Marco

April 21, 2016
” So would 2015 top an extension of surface to 100mb? Not very likely. ”

Of course it would be unlikely, since at 100 mb you are looking at the stratospheric contribution, which is expected (and shown) to cool when the troposphere warms due to GHG forcing. Hence also the reason 200 mb is so low on the list for 2015: stratospheric contamination in the signal.

I explained that to you before, but unexpectedly, this apparently went straight over your head. After all, it contradicts what you hold as true.
==========================
Poor Marco illustrates once again a total inability to carry on a scientific discussion. The "surface to 100mb" would refer to an integral of T measurement from surface to lower stratosphere, and the average would not have 2015 as the hottest year. All the poor pinhead would have to do is find or create a graph which extends the other to the present. The concept goes over his head. --AGF

"and the average would not have 2015 as the hottest year."

Well, go ahead then, AGF. Provide us with the plot.

But note once again that you are introducing stratospheric interference, and the stratosphere COOLS when the troposphere WARMS due to GHG forcing. You are thus making an analysis that makes little sense.

"That’s why glaciologists reject CRU’s temperature reconstructions generally, as far back as Groves and Switzur 1994: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf"

That reference does not support your claim. They even provide examples of glaciers that in 1987 (30 years ago) had already retreated further than at anytime during the MWP!

agf:

The “surface to 100mb” would refer to an integral of T measurement from surface to lower stratosphere

No shit Sherlock.

As Pauli would say, "not even wrong".

@327. A G Foster : Well,it is nice to see links to real science papers from you - good interesting sources actually.

They don't really show what you think they do though as #330 Marco has observed.

Note that none of these sources are actually arguing for what you are - i.e. that their scientific observations refute the climatological consensus in any way. They use dendrochronology to date glacial advances - and retreats and, hmm .. Someone else used tree rings for something in an another thorough study didn't they?Who does that remind me of , some guy ..no, some Mann .. who established some "hockey stick" graph or other! One of a great many since confirmed by multiple lines of scientific evidence. Given your acceptance of the dendrochronology used to date these glaciers pre-LIA here; I'm sure you accept the dendrochronological based work of that Mann - yeah? ;-)

Yes, there was a Little Ice Age and forests before that in some areas that are now been returned from melting ice.
That certainly doesn't refute the current Global Overheating phenomenon though.

Again, I ask you, if humans (& the known & well established physics of how GHG's trap infra-red radiation) aren't causing the current rise in global temperatures then what is?

Please note that Solar activity, Milankovitch astronomical glacial cycles and a lot of other things have already been considered and eliminated as causative factors here.

0010GMT (Apr 23 GMT)
Reposted 2230GMT

Marco says: "Well, go ahead then, AGF. Provide us with the plot."
==========================
Marco, you're the one who says Heller is cheating by comparing

the two. Let's see you do better. But the critical point

you're missing Is that NOAA has 2015 hottest only at 500mb, not

higher OR LOWER (in altitude)! Which thoroughly contradicts the

RATPAC innovation. The takeaway being Carl has done to

radiosondes what he did to GISSTEMP: revised the history to make

data match theory.

As for your non sequitur from Groves and Switzur, my list

included examples from "Holocene remnants generally (from western

Canada), including MWP (Table 2)":
http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf
...showing precisely such glaciers as you refer to. Even now a

small percentage of glaciers in both hemispheres is growing,

generally due to increased precipitation. Not all glaciers grew

enough during the LIA to survive early 20th century warming, and

not all modern glaciers had melted and warmed enough during the

MWP to grow forests. The point to take away (from Groves and

Switzur) being that glaciologists universally accept the LIA

which the Hockey Stick attempted to do away with.

So to remind all lurkers, I've shown the following chasms within

the "settled science":
1) There is little agreement as to proposed solutions to GHG

warming, e.g., Oreskes vs. Hansen on nuclear power.
2) There is little agreement on ECS, i.e., how much warming is to

be expected as per models.
3) Glaciologists never accepted Bradley and Jones 92, 93's

attempt to do away with the LIA (the whole purpose of Groves and

Switzur 94).
4) Mann (most famous for the Hockey Stick) does not accept Carl

et al's attempt to do away with the pause.

And now it is the same Carl of NOAA who we see trying to revamp

the radiosonde data. The science is hardly settled, and claims

that it is reveal hopeless corruption.
--AGF

Addendum, 2235GMT
StevoR
Using tree rings to establish chronology is a heluva lot different than using them to determine T. You know, one ring per year, or thereabouts? How do you think C14 dating got corrected? --AGF

"The takeaway being Carl has done to radiosondes what he did to GISSTEMP: revised the history to make data match theory."

Amazing how Karl apparently is so all-powerful that he even influences how NASA does its analysis.

"The point to take away (from Groves and Switzur) being that glaciologists universally accept the LIA which the Hockey Stick attempted to do away with."

If by "the Hockey Stick" you mean MBH98/99, interesting to see you propose a new meme: that MBH98/99 tried to get rid of the LIA. It didn't, of course, but for a conspiracy nutter like yourself (see above), any story that fits your beliefs will do. Regardless of veracity.

agf:

the following chasms within

the “settled science”:
1) There is little agreement as to proposed solutions to GHG

warming

Brain-dead moron thinks that a problem doesn't happen if you can't come up with a solution.

0030GMT
"Amazing how Karl apparently is so all-powerful that he even influences how NASA does its analysis."

How little y'all know. See http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-da…
NCDC, GISSTEMP and RSS have already adopted Karl's pause busting innovation. No more need for all those 'the ocean ate my warming' papers.

And "If by “the Hockey Stick” you mean MBH98/99, interesting to see you propose a new meme: that MBH98/99 tried to get rid of the LIA. It didn’t, of course..."

Well go to Figure 5b on page 783 and kindly inform us when the LIA starts if you think it's there: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
Or better yet, use the HS from BH99:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
...and try to find the LIA there. Next you'll be telling us skeptics invented the hockey stick. But you dupes are sure good for laughs: I tell you glaciologists don't buy the hockey stick and your knee jerk response is to claim the HS includes the LIA. Time to give up.
--AGF

Hey, AGF, what do you think of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&ind…

&

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

StevoR
Using tree rings to establish chronology is a heluva lot different than using them to determine T. You know, one ring per year, or thereabouts? How do you think C14 dating got corrected? –AGF

Properly by dendrochronology experts which you are not and peer reviewed.

Doing a bit of cherry-picking :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrxE3uwHECs&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&ind…

I see - you'll use the science data when you (mistakenly) think it supports your case and conveniently ignore it when it refutes your arguments. Quelle surprise!

Oh & you still have';t answered my question :

If humans (& the known & well established physics of how GHG’s trap infra-red radiation) are *not* causing the current rise in global temperatures then what is?

Please note that Solar activity, Milankovitch astronomical glacial cycles, cosmic rays and a lot of other things have already been considered and eliminated as causative factors here.

the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project

All part of the great global warming conspiracy.

I think AGF's hot air is causing the plant to warm uncontrollably.

His self-righteous attitude is a problem that hashappened, and no one's come up with a solution there.

1510GMT
StevoR doesn't know the difference between tree ring dating and tree rings as climate proxies and he still thinks he's smart enough to keep teaching us about it! StevoR, even you can count tree rings (I think). But the size of the rings indicates growth rate, which is mainly a function of precipitation. Trying to tease temperature out of them is something the experts are pretty leery of, but that certainly didn't slow down the CRU crew. Some at CRU were appropriately skeptical on the radical nonsense coming out:
http://www.di2.nu/foia/1062592331.txt
To repeat such criticism now from outside the inner circle is to be automatically labeled a denier. The CRU majority admitted in the early '90s that they had no clear evidence of an anthropogenic signal in the air, and shortly after came the Pause. So no, there remains NO clinching evidence for man made warming; as Bryson insisted, we're still coming out of the LIA. The glaciologists agree. The radical lying climate fanatics have duped the liberal world, but the skeptics know better.

And you moron, StevoR show me a video about cherry picking?? My hell, the CRU invented the practice. M Mann is the champion cherry picker of all time. Mann has been abandoned by the scientific community generally. He is only supported now by the ignorant and the dishonest. And that characterizes everyone here. Mark Stein has compiled a book full of scientific disparagement of Mann's crap: http://www.yalescientific.org/2015/11/book-review-a-disgrace-to-the-pro…

StevoR informs us that Milankovitch cycles have been eliminated as a potential factor in current warming. Aint that rich? StevoR you know-nothing blabberbox, the warming is occurring IN SPITE of decreasing insolation. We have to understand what caused the LIA before we can understand why it ended. It ended long before CO2 became a factor, but the glaciers continue to catch up to MWP conditions. Hell, Glacier Bay is still rebounding an inch per year due ice loss from LIA recovery. Do you know what that means? I won't even try to explain it to you. --AGF

Meanwhile back in reality :

https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/23/is-a-new-temp-record-already-locke…

Ohh shit. :-(

That graph ..

And now StevoR mindlessly parrots the propaganda from the newly modified (Karlized) GISSTEMP. They've fiddled with T history so bad they wouldn't know a record year from a hole in the ground. UAH shows records, but that's a pretty short history. Still, as we pull further out of the LIA record years are to be expected and hoped for. The more distance we put between us and the LIA the better. The LIA was no fun.
--AGF

agf:

record years are to be expected

No they're not. They're Karlized.

You've got to keep your shit straight.

Mark Stein has compiled a book full of

defamation.

How little y’all know. See http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-hiatus-disappears-with-new-da…

Indeed. Newspaper journalist Tollefson has to make up this shit:

That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Karl and every other global surface temperature record does nothing of the sort. IPCC 2013 said there are TEMPORARY slowdowns in the rate of global warming and that's exactly what happened in every global surface temperature record.

No need for Tollefson to make up his shit.

No more need for all those ‘the ocean ate my warming’ papers.

The brain-dead think they have to mean 'the ocean eats global warming forever'. Looks like the brain-dead will never get over the "pause" not lasting forever.

I tell you glaciologists don’t buy the hockey stick

Sure ya tell us. And they don't believe this lake exists either:

"In 1973 Tasman Glacier had no terminal lake and by 2008 Tasman Lake was 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) long, 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) wide, and 245 metres (804 ft) deep."

As I said, stick to lying agf. You won’t look quite so dumb e.g. this is a good lie:

There were plenty of cold alarmists besides Bryson.

agf:

as Bryson insisted, we’re still coming out of the LIA

You have to be pretty brain-dead to cite someone you've agreed is a crackpot.

agf:

Glacier Bay is still rebounding an inch per year due ice loss from LIA recovery

Dumb clown doesn't understand the difference between ground level and surface air temperature. Most isostatic rebound is from ice age (> 10,000 y ago) ice removal BTW.

I won’t even try to explain it

You're not capable of having anything explained to you anyway.

1400GMT
Working backwards:
1) Glacier Bay rebound is blamed entirely on LIA recovery: http://fairweather.alaska.edu/chris/epsl_larsen.pdf
2) Tasman Glacier's anomalous behavior is explained by debris insulation delaying LIA recovery: "THE CONTEMPORARY RETREAT OF TASMAN GLACIER, SOUTHERN ALPS, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE EVOLUTION OF TASMAN PROGLACIAL LAKE SINCE AD 2000"
Robert C. Dykes, Martin S. Brook and Stefan Winkler

"Contrary to their western counterparts, the termini of the larger, debris-covered glaciers of the Aoraki/Mt Cook region, situated on the eastern flank of the Southern Alps, have shown a pattern of fluctuations less intimately connected to the regional climate trends over the last century" (p.142).

"The formation of these proglacial lakes has further decoupled these glaciers from changes in climate, with the transition to calving termini appearing to over-ride climatic
inputs" (Ibid., PDF online).

O'Neill's blanket condemnation of Tollefson's piece is most unfortunate for his dogma, as it reports the demise of the Pause which had been accepted by the IPCC's 2013 report (9.2). It's not obvious what part of Tollefson's report O'Neill objects to; he seems motivated only by self justification. He denies the Pause generally, but he more recently denied that any data sets had adopted Karl's Pause buster. Therefore he demonizes Tollefson for reporting that such was indeed the case. And he probably denies that the IPCC ever accepted the Pause.

It will be interesting to see whether BEST updates its graphs comparing BEST, NOAA, GISS and HadCRUT, after seemingly going to so much pains to align them, but the new divergence is slight. --AGF

From September 1969 to December 1971 I was in College at Oshkosh and I distinctly remember receiving a Newsweek or Time Magazine which said on the Front Cover, "New Global Ice Age Coming" Underneath at the Bottom it said, "Climate Scientists predict New Global Ice Age." It was either a Time Magazine or a Newsweek Magazine. I had a subscription to Newsweek while a Resident Assistant at Oshkosh. I clearly remember it as it seemed extremely out of the ordinary and I read the article inside the magazine. These same Catastrophic Climate Change Chicken Little Falsifiers morphed into a New Global Warming Climate Change Disaster agenda when their Ice Age Agenda from Pollution proved false. They are as false today as they were in the 1970's. In 1850 the amount of Carbon in the air was about the same as it is today, .04%...Man's use of fossil fuels is not causing massive climate change. They are lying just like they were lying in the 1970's.There are hundreds of reasons for regular and normal climate change and man's use of Fossil fuels is a tiny, tiny factor. In the 1300's there was a period of time where Earth's temperatures soared and were extremely hot, more than in previous centuries. These FLat Earth Global Warming theorists would have predicted massive Earth Calamities, rising oceans, death to coastal cities, Polar Bears floating on ice floes (Which they rest on while hunting) and the End of the Earth if we didn't do what they said! It is like Chicken Little saying "The Sky is Falling, the Sky is falling." Climate Change Falsifiers are saying, "Beware! Climate Change Disasters are coming, Climate Change Disasters are coming! " Their Global Ice Age Disaster was False and so are their Catastrophic Climate Change Disasters. Remember that most Earth Inhabitants once believed the Earth was Flat based on their "proven science." Government Climate Scientists tell us the same things today; that their "science" is accurate and we should simply "trust them." Their science is based on you believing their fear mongering based on False and short term climate data fed into their computer models. It is all based on assumptions and politically motivated calculations. They don't include 300-500 year periods or 1000 or 5,000 or 10,000 year periods. The Pacific and Atlantic oceans have gone into their cooling phase simce 2010 and it will produce cooler temperatures for the next 45 years just like from 1977 to 2010 the Oceans went into their warming phases and produced warmer Earth temperatures. From 1944 to 1977 the Oceans were in their cooling Phase producing cooler Earth temperatures and that is why Climate Scientists then predicted a New Global Ice Age based on short term computer model data...Don't listen to them! They are trying to deceive you to control the masses Globally and push their extremist Environmental agenda which will eliminate clean inexpensive coal energy and shove expensive solar and wind down our throats. Even Germany the world's renewable energy leader must use coal when wind and solar do not meet their nation's energy needs, which is often. Catastrophic Climate Change is a lie and future generations will laugh and call them fools in the same class as the Flat Earth believers. Stay true to the truth and not the lying Babel from Government controlled and paid false climate change falsifiers.

agf:

Glacier Bay rebound is blamed entirely on LIA recovery

Well lucky, lucky, lucky Glacier Bay. That paper also points out:

"in Fennoscandia [1] and Hudson Bay [11], where ongoing isostatic rebound has been exponentially decaying since the terminal phases of deglaciation from the Last Glacial Maximum"

Dumb clown still doesn’t understand the difference between ground level and surface air temperature.

transition to calving termini

OK. Tipping points can produce more rapid than usual change. This is hardly good news about the consequences of global warming.

It’s not obvious what part of Tollefson’s report O’Neill objects to

How dumb can you get? I'll quote it AGAIN:

That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Karl (2015) actually says:

A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (supplementary materials), which also accounts for the impact of annual errors of estimate on the trend, shows that NOT the 1998–2012 trend was positive at the 0.10 significance level.

Not statistically significant. Just the same as the IPCC (2013) said about the 1998-2012 trend.

Saying that Karl (2015) contradicted the IPCC (2013) is like saying that Karl stating 2014 was a record warm year contradicts the IPCC saying 2012 was not a record warm year. A plain stupid claim of contradiction. As I said, no need for Tollefson to make up this shit.

he probably denies that the IPCC ever accepted the Pause

You are full of shit. As I stated above, the IPCC (2013) said the 1998-2012 trend was not statistically significant. Karl (2015) agrees the 1998-2012 trend was not statistically significant.

It will be interesting to see whether BEST

BEST are part of the Great Global Warming Conspiracy after all.

BTW, even Bryson said his prediction of global cooling was conditional on human generation of aerosols. He just thought that generation of aerosols would get out of control. In any case,

there were plenty of cold alarmists besides Bryson

is a good lie.

What is it about Wisconsin and climate crackpots?

1330GMT
Laden's jester in residence offers the following ungrammatical paragraph:

"Karl (2015) actually says:

"A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (supplementary materials), which also accounts for the impact of annual errors of estimate on the trend, shows that NOT the 1998–2012 trend was positive at the 0.10 significance level.

"Not statistically significant. Just the same as the IPCC (2013) said about the 1998-2012 trend."
============================================
Ungrammatical, that is, because of the intrusive "NOT," which O'Nell inserted. The original reads:
"A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (supplementary materials), which
also accounts for the impact of annual errors of
estimate on the trend, shows that the 1998–2014
and 2000–2014 trends (but not 1998–2012) were
positive at the 0.10 significance level" (p.1471, penultimate paragraph).
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf

How can a guy like O'Neill stand to live with himself?
--AGF

Oh my God. How brain-dead can agf get?

According to agf:

the intrusive “NOT,” which O’Nell inserted

and then IMMEDIATELY quotes:

(but NOT 1998–2012)

My emphasis on the "not" of course because of agf's severe cognitive incapacity.

Hard to know if agf has a reading problem as well as being brain-dead. The latter can influence the former of course.

mp:

Newsweek printed exactly what the scientists were saying.

Sure. If you say so. Who are we to question you?

Reid Bryson from Wisconsin was a climate crackpot

Michael Plautz from Wisconsin is a climate crackpot.

Ergo, what is it about Wisconsin and climate crackpots?

1320GMT
And of such are the priests of climate doom: Pachauri, Mann, Oreskes, Gleick, O'Neill. Whether through original sin or their own waywardness, they are totally depraved. And the dangerous, heretical books that could alert you to their depravity are banned. Thinking skeptically is poison for the soul.

Now what you do with your faith is entirely up to you. Live in the sticks and burn firewood if you like, or drive a volt. Vote democratic socialist, support the European Union (CRU's patron). But don't listen to neo-deniers like James Hansen! Safe nuclear energy might just solve the problem, and that's really the last thing we want. --AGF

Still waiting for Michael Plautz to apologize for lying to us.

Now that the brain-dead agf has run out of arguments all he can resort to is ad hominems. What a dishonest and pathetic piece of scum he turned out to be.

"I could show you hundreds of articles I still have from the 1970’s showing climate scientists predicting a Global Ice Age "

Well, go ahead then, show us those hundreds of articles that you still have. Scientific articles, please, not newspaper articles that claim some scientist said something.

mp:

Please tell Chris O’Neill that he will never be invited to a forum on Climate Change with “respected” scientists.

Neither will you so what's your point?

he will never be invited to a forum on Climate Change with “respected” scientists.

By the way, at least I'm not the one calling climate scientists liars. Can't imagine getting too many invitations for calling them that!

“I could show you hundreds of articles I still have from the 1970’s showing climate scientists predicting a Global Ice Age ”

.... in about 21,000 years. No one claimed scientists do not predict that another glacial period will happen (which, by the way, Earth is still in).

Your falsehood is that in the 1970s some scientists predicted another ice age *SOON.* You were exposed as a liar.

Has AGF answered my question in #338 yet?

If humans (& the known & well established physics of how GHG’s trap infra-red radiation) are *not* causing the current rise in global temperatures then what is?

Hmm .. I'm guessing no?

@353. Michael Plautz :

Plus your (Greg laden's - ed) put down is childish as hell. But your comment is simply your opinion.

The blogger's opinion is also based in solid science and reality as observed by an overwhelming climatological expert consensus.

I have found that people who disagree with the False science of Catastrophic Climate Change Disasters always receive derogatory comments, put downs, bullying and mockery from those who believe these lies. Maybe you cannot help your arrogant attitudes and prideful disdain of the lower classes and anyone who disagrees with you and who does not support your ideology. The Flat Earth Believer were the same way. (EDIT : Erm, actually not historically true.) Eventually they eliminated their opponents, those who taught the Earth was round, by murdering or imprisoning them. I sense the same attitudes in you. Degradation of opponents is a typical liberal leftist extremist environmentalist tactic.It makes it easier in “your” eyes to dismiss any evidence that does not agree with your agenda.

So .. no childish insults, or political childish polemical attacks there, no sirree, just all the bits I've italicised. And maybe more. I was going to contrastingly put the substance of your argument against climate reality in bold but I couldn't find anything applicable.

Is this intentional satire or or are you for real here?

If you are intentionally satirical -congratulations ya got me! It is sometimes pretty hard to tell at least for me! ;-)

But I do wish you a nice day. May God Bless you and His son Jesus open your eyes to the truth. Don’t mock Him or you will be fighting a battle you cannot win. I pray your eyes are opened to the Truth of Salvation and who really is in control of the Climate.

So .. God controls the climate eh? Which god and with what supporting evidence for, well, any part of that non-sequiteur may I ask?

PS. I don’t care about paragraph length. The information is the same.

Firstly, what information exactly?> Secondly, improved readability and presentation helps your case and could make you somewhat more convincing if you actually had a case to put. Thirdly, yes we can tell and yes that is your erroneous personal opinion not objective quantifiable fact.

Damn. Italics within blockquotes don't work here do they? Okay take II :

... the False science of Catastrophic Climate Change Disasters .. lies. ... your arrogant attitudes and prideful disdain .. The Flat Earth Believer were the same way. (EDIT : Erm, actually not historically true.) ... typical liberal leftist extremist environmentalist tactic. ..

So .. no childish insults, or political childish polemical attacks there, no sirree, just all the bits I’ve cited there.

@341. A G Foster :

StevoR doesn’t know the difference between tree ring dating and tree rings as climate proxies and he still thinks he’s smart enough to keep teaching us about it!

Actually I'm citing the experts who do know what they're talking about here. Y'know scientists. I'm not claiming any personal expertise so I'm going to listen to & respect those who are experts in their field. Just as I don't do my own plumbing or wiring but leave those to plumbers and electricians.

The CRU majority admitted in the early ’90s that they had no clear evidence of an anthropogenic signal in the air, and shortly after came the Pause.

Er , nope and nope. I take it you are relying on the misinterpreted taken out of context stolen Climate Research Unit of East Anglia "climategate" manufactroversy which have been repeatedly debunked?

The "Pause" .. like those other Denier PRATT's is also a complete myth as plenty of scientific evidence has since shown :

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/11/05/climate_pause_nope…

(Plenty of links there and actual NASA rocket climate scientist speaking.)

StevoR informs us that Milankovitch cycles have been eliminated as a potential factor in current warming. Aint that rich? StevoR you know-nothing blabberbox, the warming is occurring IN SPITE of decreasing insolation.

Er, doesn't that actually support what I'm saying here and tell you that the climatologists consensus is correct?

We know where the Milankovitch cycles are trending and we've observed what the climate is doing and these are going in opposite directions so, yes, Milankovicth cycles - like solar activity have been eliminated as causing the present planetary overheating.

We have to understand what caused the LIA before we can understand why it ended.

And, funnily enough, we *do * understand this at least those who do & know the science do. See, for instance :

https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-intermedi…

& http://earthsky.org/earth/volcanoes-might-have-triggered-the-little-ice…

Hell, Glacier Bay is still rebounding an inch per year due ice loss from LIA recovery. Do you know what that means?

Isostatic rebound - where rock rises following being pressed down by the weight of ice over aeons - yes I do know what that means and what its significance is.

You, it seems, do not. It doesn't mean - as you seem to wrongly think - that Global Overheating isn't real and it doesn't refute any climate reality.

Once again, StevoR doesn't know the difference between a tree ring chronology and tree ring density proxy, nor is he capable of admitting such, but he blabbers on with gibberish. Not a single competent person or argument has shown up here, so I think I'll take my arguments elsewhere. For the record, Glacier Bay was added to the evidence of MWP forests covered by LIA glaciers to illustrate to the novices how thoroughly the hockey stick is refuted by glaciology, but even that argument goes over the heads of everyone here. So the lists I'm working on of global cooling fanatics, I'll reserve for a more critical audience. --AGF

MWP forests covered by LIA glaciers to illustrate how thoroughly the hockey stick is refuted

Brain-dead moron agf doesn't realise that his MWP followed by a LIA followed by his "rebound", regardless of cause, forms a hockey stick.

1940GMT
Didn't I ask O'Niell once before to point out the time of demarcation between MWP and LIA on the hockey stick? Did he? Can he? Only if he gets stoned first. --AGF

0315GMT (3May16)
Desertphile adds his name to the growing list of posters here who speak with perfect confidence about things they know absolutely nothing about. DP, the stick derives from MBH99 which goes back a thousand years and attempts to revise a long history of climate reconstructions, all vastly superior to it. Do you think the MWP and LIA were inventions of modern skeptics? That's what you're saying! But even if we go back only 600 years we would have no trouble finding temperatures warmer than 1945. Then again, maybe the Koch brothers planted all those MWP logs in all those glaciers. --AGF

@379. A G Foster : Didn't I ask you quite a few times before :

If humans GHG emissons - & the well established basic physics of how these trap infra-red radiation - are *not* causing the current rise in global temperatures then what is?

Yes, I did and yet you haven't answered my question. Pity, you'd almost certainly win a Nobel prize if you could prove your case here and set a whole new physics paradigm.

Oh & no, it isn't natural causes or cycle as explained here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq8_l6s89uY

"5 Climate Change isn't it natural from potholer54"

Also thought you'd tucked tail and run @ #377. No such luck eh?

As noted already previous natural changes such as the Little Ice Age (caused by a combination of volcanic activity and prolonged solar minimum) & Medieval Warming Period aren't the same as the current Global Overheating because we don't have these natural factors causing the current exceptionally high and rapid planetary heating.

Two days later and my last post hasn't shown up. I'll keep this short. If Desertphile had bothered to check Wikipedia he would see he was wrong on every count: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Or maybe he plays with crooked, broken hockey sticks.

Open challenge: find a glaciologist who doesn't invoke the LIA in explaining glacier behavior. And for our purposes we'll define the MWP as the warm time before the LIA.
--AGF

1700GMT
If there is any validity to StevoR's dubious explanations for the LIA then the same explanations would apply to current warmth: a lack of volcanic activity and resumed solar irradiance. And there remains the probable but as yet unquantified anthropogenic component, still not detected in the troposphere where it should first be identified.

But compare Wikipedia's LIA graph with its hockey stick graph and you will see how far apart are StevoR and Desertphile, i.e., MBH vs. the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
See, you don't have to have the foggiest notion what you're talking about as long as you bow to the credo.
--AGF

" If Desertphile had bothered to check Wikipedia he would see he was wrong on every count: "

And yet all of the world's experts on thesubject, without exception, agrees with me about "the" hockey stick. How do you explain your delusion?

2030GMT
And to add to Wiki's disagreement (above) is Ed Cook of the self same CRU. He calls Mann's work a "mess," holds Bradley in contempt, and Mann beneath contempt: see http://www.di2.nu/foia/1062592331.txt
And remember Stein's book. Sorry, DPhile, Mann is universally considered a quack, except by the alarm machine.
--AGF

@385. A G Foster :

If there is any validity to StevoR’s dubious explanations for the LIA then the same explanations would apply to current warmth: a lack of volcanic activity and resumed solar irradiance.

So you are claiming the same things that caused the LIA -volcanic activity and solar activity are responsible for the present Global Overheating then, AGF?

Your problem - which you'll no doubt remain in willfully ignorant denial of - is that, of course, both factors have already been considered and ruled out by climatologists because they aren't actually as ridiculously stupid as the Denialists would claim they are.

We know its not our daytime star that's to blame :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&ind…

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar by greenman3610.

Plus since AGF keeps hammering the MWP please watch and think about this clip as well :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&ind…

As for the second volcanic idea - again that's another PRATT (Point Refuted Already a Thousand Times) from AGF as explained here among many other places :

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age-volcanoes.htm

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used a multiple linear regression approach to filter out the effects of volcanic and solar activity, and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). They found that volcanic activity, as measured by aerosol optical thickness data (AOD) has only caused between 0.02 and 0.04°C per decade warming from 1979 through 2010 (Table 1, Figure 2), or about 0.06 to 0.12°C warming of the surface and lower troposphere, repsectively, since 1979 (out of approximately 0.5°C observed surface warming). ... (snip graph) .. Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that although volcanic activity can account for about 10% of the observed global warming from 1979 to 2005, between 1889 and 2006 volcanic activity had a small net cooling effect on global temperatures. Thus volcanoes have not caused the long-term global warming over the past century, and can explain only a small fraction of the warming over the past 25 years.

So quelle surprise AGF your supposed alternative causes for the Global Overheating phenomenon have been debunked repeatedly long ago by actual climate scientists.

If you disagree with these debunkings well, please watch the clips linked here and read the scientific papers cited and explain exactly where and how and why you think they are wrong with supporting scientific evidence.

Or, y'know just run away again, which ever you choose.

The brain-dead agf, since he is brain-dead, never did realise his total misunderstanding of Karl (2015), EVEN THOUGH HE QUOTED IT HIMSELF:

A more comprehensive approach for determining the 0.10 significance level (supplementary materials), which
also accounts for the impact of annual errors of
estimate on the trend, shows that the 1998–2014
and 2000–2014 trends (

BUT NOT 1998–2012

) were positive at the 0.10 significance level” (p.1471, penultimate paragraph).

The IPCC previously stated that the 1998–2012 trend was NOT significant.

1430GMT
Never argue with a fool, it says somewhere. StevoR, if X makes it cold, then not X does not make it cold. Not cold is warm. The LIA was cold; the present is not. So, IF your explanation for the LIA was valid (it probably isn't) then the the termination of your supposed causes brought an end to the LIA. In any case the LIA is gradually coming to an end for whatever reasons, but it will take some time for the glaciers to revert to pre-LIA conditions, as seen by the MWP forest evidence. We cannot know what causes current warmth if we do not know what caused the LIA.

AS for the other fool, I quoted Karl correctly; O'Neill did not. He left out this:

the 1998–2014 and 2000–2014 trends (but

...when he changed "not" to "NOT," and inserted no ellipsis (...) to indicate the deletion, which is a major no-no. And of course cutting the sentence in the middle of a parenthesis is an even worse no-no, but this is the sort of thing one can expect from a perfect idiot.

All this is irrelevant; Karl is full of crap as even a con man like Mann could tell you (or especially a con man like Mann):

"It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims."
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/Fy…

Now O'Neill will not be able to make much sense of that subtitle but the reader of average intelligence will. Mann is making a feeble attempt to rehabilitate himself by calling out Karl's BS. Too late for the science though--as I tried to inform the morons way back (O'Neill characteristically denied it)--NOAA and NASA have already adopted Karl et al. This leaves Mann et al at odds with GISS and NCDC. The settlers should find this unsettling.
--AGF

agf:

He left out this:

the 1998–2014 and 2000–2014 trends

You just don't get it you brain-dead moron.

THE IPCC WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 1998-2014 AND 2000-2014 TRENDS

1620GMT
Well, Chris O'Neill, when you accuse "Nature's" Tollefson of lying you should at least quote and reference where the IPCC 2013 report shows this to be the case. Your credibility is down to zero, you know. --AGF

Chris O'Neill: "The IPCC previously stated that the 1998–2012 trend was NOT significant."

The IPCC said that because all of the world's experts in the subject said it; Dr Philip Jones said it. "A G Foster" wants people to believe that some scientist some where has said the trend was/is statistically significant--- when none have said so. The cultist is attacking an imaginary claim, which no scientists defend, because he knows he cannot attack what scientists do assert and therefore to defend.

0105GMT (5/7/16 GMT)
Well, DPhile, if the IPCC said that why don't you tell us when and where they said it. CO'N man can't. But significance is in the eye of the beholder:
1. Dozens of papers have been written to explain the "insignificant" pause.
2. Oreskes campaigned to have the word banned.
3. Karl et al wrote a paper denying the pause.
4. NOAA and NASA adopted Karl et al.
5. Fyfe and Mann et al wrote a paper debunking Karl et al.

Back at 334, 335 Marco and CO'N man ridiculed the notion that NOAA and NASA adopted Karl et al, so I linked Tollefson at Nature, whom CO'N man immediately called a liar. He prefers to demonize his allies rather than admit a mistake. Take his word for anything at your own risk.
--AGF

agf:

you should at least quote and reference where the IPCC 2013 report shows this:

THE IPCC WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 1998-2014 AND 2000-2014 TRENDS

to be the case.

You utterly stupid moron. Where is a 2013 IPCC report going to talk about trends to 2014?????????????????????????

The IPCC 2013 only talked about trends up to 1998-2012. The only mention of the 1998-2012 trend by Karl was where he said it was NOT significant, AGREEING WITH THE IPCC 2013.

Only crap journalists like Tollefson and brain-dead morons like agf who repeat his crap claim they DISAGREED.

"Back at 334, 335 Marco and CO’N man ridiculed the notion that NOAA and NASA adopted Karl et al, so I linked Tollefson at Nature,"

Actually, I ridiculed your claim that Karl et al did anything to GISTEMP. You still haven't been able to figure out how enormously stupid you sounded there. Tollefson doesn't support your view in any way.

@390. A G Foster :

..StevoR, if X makes it cold, then not X does not make it cold. Not cold is warm.

No. Not-cold is not-cold, warm is something else.

Its quite possible to be neither feeling cold nor hot, even not really either warm or cool.

Also Cold can be caused by Y as well as or instead of X. Therefore, just because it is cold does NOT mean that X is causing it - and ditto for heat too.

You can be warm because you've put on an extra blanket or because its hot outside or because you are next to a roaring fire, et cetera..

Now in this case specifically the causation of the Little Ice Age is known to be a result of several factors including reduced solar insolation and increased volcanic activity.

Today during this current Overheating hothouse trending planetary environment, here's nothing special far as I'm aware with volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance is lower than usual and these have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating.

What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims? (Hint : None. Because reality is not supporting AGF here.)

... So, IF your explanation for the LIA was valid (it probably isn’t) ..

Its not *my* explanation for the LIA, it is what the various scientific studies have shown. Did you miss all the linked and cited sources in my #388 here?

You,AGF, are saying the scientific consensus there like the one on Global Overheating is wrong because _____??? And that we should believe you over all those real climate scientists because ____??? (Fill in the blanks if you can!)

.. then the the termination of your supposed causes brought an end to the LIA. In any case the LIA is gradually coming to an end for whatever reasons, but it will take some time for the glaciers to revert to pre-LIA conditions, as seen by the MWP forest evidence. We cannot know what causes current warmth if we do not know what caused the LIA.

That's just fractally wrong - wrong on every level.

AGF keeps on spewing up repeatedly debunked PRATTs as though repeating them makes them right somehow - which never works. But is a typical anti-science tactic.

To sum up yet again :

Yes, climatologists do have a good understanding on what caused the LIA, no we're not just "reverting" to MWP conditions naturally. Yes, humans are causing the current global Overheating phenomenon and, yes these basic facts have been very well and clearly established by multiple lines of scientific evidence collected and understood by actual climate scientists for well over a hundred years now. (Starting with Svante Arrhenius in 1896.)

At this point - well, even earlier really - AGF is just sticking his head in the sand singing la-la-la can't-hear you.

Now O’Neill will not be able to make much sense of that subtitle but the reader of average intelligence will.

Whelp, that sure rules *you* out then doesn't it AGF!

@395. AGF :

1. Dozens of papers have been written to explain the “insignificant” pause.

Which have it needs to be added shown that actually there was really no so-called "pause" and that Global Overheating has continued.

BTW. AGF are you a believer in that mythical "pause" or are you sticking to chanting your "Just LIA natural recovery" crock because these two false claims are mutually incompatible and contradictory. Note that the "pause" assumes Global Warming was and is real before a certain arbitrary point at which it somehow stopped or slowed - which, again, we know now didn't actually happen anyway.

^ Correction :

"1. Dozens of papers have been written to explain the “insignificant” pause."

Papers which have, it needs to be added, shown that actually there was really no so-called “pause” and that Global Overheating has continued.

As explained here - complete with links :

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20…

Perhaps the best-known myth is the so-called “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming. This year, six individual studies have looked into this and found it incorrect. I have co-authored one of the studies, and I’ve written about some of the others here and here.

Well just today, another paper was published by Stephan Lewandowsky, James Risbey, and Naomi Oreskes that comes to the same conclusion. The paper is titled, “On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming”.

& as summarised by Naomi Oreskes :

So the bottom line is: there is no pause, and there has never been one. The rate of global warming does fluctuate—but this has been known for a long time. Whether or not any particular fluctuation has an identifiable cause—like the effects of ocean heat uptake or an El Nino-- is an interesting question, but a fluctuation is not a pause, and it is important to be clear that the recent fluctuation is not statistically anomalous compared with other fluctuations we have seen, relative to the longer-term warming trend.

Of course deniers gunna deny but that's the scientific reality.

agf:

Fyfe and Mann et al wrote a paper debunking Karl et al.

It did nothing of the sort. You're just making shit up as usual. Mann et al point out:

"we investigate whether the slowdown and its recent recovery were predictable."

Karl et al. pointed out the recovery, just like Mann et al.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2016GL068159/full :

"Considerable attention has been paid to a temporary slowdown in large-scale surface warming that began during the early 2000s and persisted into the early 2010s."

It is no longer the early 2010s. There are people who are incapable of understanding that concept.

2005hrs.5May16GMT
It's a regular bullshitting convention, so put on your hip waders 'cause knee boots won't cut it. A sampling: compare #'s 396 and 397, nicely juxtaposed and wholly contradictory. O'Neill maintains Tollefson is a liar and Marco says I misrepresented him. Obviously they can't both be right, but don't expect them to sort that one out (Marco is in effect calling O'Neill a liar).

Marco goes on to say: "Actually, I ridiculed your claim that Karl et al did anything to GISTEMP. You still haven’t been able to figure out how enormously stupid you sounded there. Tollefson doesn’t support your view in any way."

Marco is clueless as always, as the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in Tollefson's story clearly tell:

"That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium.

"Researchers revised the NOAA data set to correct for known biases in sea-surface-temperature records and to incorporate data from new land-based monitoring stations that extend into the Arctic — an area where observations are sparse. The updated NOAA data set also includes observations from 2013 and 2014; the latter ranked as the warmest year on record."

And for further confirmation see the Fyfe, Mann et al paper, especially figure 1 which labels the revised NOAA graph NOAA-Carl: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/Fy…
And for further corroboration of my take on it see Tollefson again: http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again…

These trolls of Laden's never get anything right, nor do they care whether they get anything right. They are here to obfuscate, to load the blog with bullshit and drown out the sound of the honest whistle blowers.
--AGF

2035.8May16GMT
And CO'N man keep up babbling about Reid Bryson being a lone ice doom prophet. Here's a preliminary list of like thinkers culled from PopTech:

Dr. Earl W. Barrett of the ESSA Research Laboratories, Boulder Colo., says the planet's total environment 'is being altered, perhaps disastrously and irreversibly, by human activities.

Meteorologist Paul Cato says pollution "could bring on a new Ice Age that would cover states like Florida with 400 feet of water" (sic).

Cites William Cobb of NOAA, who in original version refers to a new ice age as only a possibility: https://news.google.com/newspapers

Dr. Tadashi Yano. Says nearly one degree drop already occurred.
“Air pollution may cause another ice age, warns a Japanese meteorologist...”

Hubert Lamb

Cesare Emiliani "fears a new Ice AGe could come within 2000 or 3000 years, or even earlier if man's contribution to climate changes--through pollution, deforestation, and other means--should alter the present balance"

Francis Stehli, geologist with Case Western Reserve University: "...the world is headed for another Ice Age within 200 years." 1/73

"Lamb predicts another LIA; Jiri Kukla predicts a big ice age. Dansgaard predicts only 10 to 20 years more cooling. Murray Mitchell and Steven Schneider assert CO2 warming and particulate cooling cancel each other out."

James McQigg

Kenneth Hare, U of Toronto, former president of Britian's Royal Meteorological Society says, "Bryson is the most important figure in climatology today...I'm naturally a lot more conservative than he is, but I take what he says very seriously indeed."

Helen Kukla

George Denton

James Fletcher NASA chief

Cites a skeptical Donald Gilman of the NWS. "Bryson has many supporters. Others aren't convinced. 2/2/75

E W Wahl and T L Lawson:
“...one might express this in an even more general way by ,asserting that we really are still in the “Little Ice Age” which was interrupted only briefly for something like 70 yr by a temporary warm spell in the Northern Hemisphere .”

Dendrochronolgists Samuel Epstein and Crayton Yapp 1/2/78

Madeleine Briskin of U of Cincinnati: "...almost all my colleagues agree we're entering a cold phase" 2/10/78

Drs. Lenoa M. Libby of UCLA and Louis J. Pandolfi. 1/16/79

Maynard Miller, U of I, Alaska glaciologist: "...we are in the middle of or long overdue for some kind of Ice Age." "...we are apparently dropping into a cooling phase." 6/5/79
========================================
So far I've found only one warming warning, near the end of the decade:
Verner E. Suomi, chairman, Woods Hole NAS panel, 1979:
"A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late."

Excerpts:
1977 - Has The Ice Age Cometh Again? (Calgary Herald, February 1, 1977)
Horrible titular grammar. Article by Bruce Ingersoll (Chicago Sun-Times). Cites Bryson: "I catch hell from my colleagues for being a doomsayer."

1978 - Little Ice Age: Severe winters and cool summers ahead (Calgary Herald, January 10, 1978)
UPI Cites Madeleine Briskin of U of Cincinnati. "...almost all my colleagues agree we're entering a cold phase."

Repeat:
Kenneth Hare, U of Toronto, former president of Britian's Royal Meteorological Society says, "Bryson is the most important figure in climatology today...I'm naturally a lot more conservative than he is, but I take what he says very seriously indeed." --1974 - Ominous Changes in the World's Weather (PDF) (Fortune Magazine, February 1974)
============================================
And we're just getting started. That global cooling scare was as real as it could be, and the real deniers are the liars and ignoramuses who deny it. --AGF

agf:

They are here to obfuscate, to load the blog with bullshit and drown out the sound of the honest whistle blowers.

What an appalling full-of-shit shameless hypocrite you are.

O’Neill maintains Tollefson is a liar

or bullshitter in claiming Karl 2015 contradicts the 2013 IPCC report. Absolutely true. Tollefsen is making shit up.

and Marco says I misrepresented him.

Marco: "Tollefson doesn’t support your view in any way - that Karl et al did anything to GISTEMP."

Notice the difference: Tollefsen is making shit up about Karl contradicting the IPCC. Agf is making shit up that Tollefson said Karl did something to GISTEMP. Hell, Tollefsen doesn't even mention GISTEMP.

Two different things. But the utterly stupid agf is too brain-dead to realise there is a difference.

Marco goes on to say: “Actually, I ridiculed your claim that Karl et al did anything to GISTEMP. You still haven’t been able to figure out how enormously stupid you sounded there. Tollefson doesn’t support your view in any way.”

Marco is clueless as always, as the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in Tollefson’s story clearly tell:

“That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium.

You are such a moron agf. GISTEMP is not the same thing as the NOAA data set.

agf:

Cites William Cobb of NOAA, who in original version refers to a new ice age as only a possibility: https://news.google.com/newspapers

Duh, yes. I did point out that the predictions by virtually everyone who predicted an ice-age was conditional (on air pollution in the form of aerosols) and thus only a possibility.

But as we all know, agf is too brain-dead to understand the difference between conditional and unconditional.

"Marco is clueless as always, as the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in Tollefson’s story clearly tell:"

Upon which a quote follows that mentions only NOAA, but not GISS (and thereby NASA)...

And *I* am supposed the one who is clueless?

Hell's teeth.

I omitted this blog from my bookmarks accidentally a few months ago. I come back and this garbage is -still- going on.

Greg, I salute you. My grumpy old lady nature would have grrrrown irresistible and shut this down long ago.

Foster #404

Nice Gish Gallop BTW with considerable name dropping and quotes out of context I suspect, although I have yet to examine each one in detail, which of course is the aim of a Gish Gallop — similar to that of a document dump.

However one stood out to me, that quote attributed to Cesare Emiliani.

Now those exact words only crop up in one source I could find Popular Science Jan 1973 and they are of editorial origin and not a direct quote from Emiliani.

On the ice age prospect, largely a media driven storm built upon concerns of a possible nuclear winter, Wiki has a reasonable run-down of non-scientific controversy and has this to say:

In 1972, Emiliani warned "Man's activity may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps..."

Very different — No!

and shut this down long ago

Trouble is, shutting down science denialists' comments doesn't make science denialists cease to exist. They keep spreading their disinformation wherever they get the opportunity and keep influencing how people vote. Shutting down comments here will not stop that.

denialist claptrap should not be removed imo (apart from blatant threats etc)

it should be left as a monument of stupidity and self delusion

and it is sometimes informative to refer back to old threads - where the same tired old arguments are put forward - promoted with the certainty only the truly deluded can manage

@411. tadaaa : I agree - its good to have evidence given the number of times the same PRATT's come up and then get shot down in flames of logic and evidence. I wouldn't want them removed or history rewritten. Leaving a record for future generations to judge - I'm definitely in favour of that.

I would ju-ust love a, say, fifteen minute or so editing window to fix typos and italics fails etc.. or even just a preview ability please but that's another story and yeah, mea culpa I do suck at typing, sorry.

***

Hey, AGF, no response from you to the points I raised in my #398 then? No answer to the question :

Are you a believer in that mythical “pause” or are you sticking to chanting your “Just LIA natural recovery” crock because these two false claims are mutually incompatible and contradictory?

Or / & :

You,AGF, are saying the scientific consensus there like the one on Global Overheating is wrong because _____??? And that we should believe you over all those real climate scientists because ____??? (Fill in the blanks if you can!)

In addition to :

Today during this current Overheating hothouse trending planetary environment, there’s nothing special far as I’m aware with volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance is lower than usual and these have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating. What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims?

Please answer these questions rather than dodging them AGF.

1520.9May16GMT

Acronyms for today:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Karl ran NOAA's NCDC, now NCEI, "the world’s largest provider of weather and climate data," to which NASA defers:

"July 19, 2015: The data and results put on the public site on July 15 were affected by a bug in the ERSST v4 part of the automated incremental update procedure. The analysis was redone after recreating the full version of SBBX.ERSSTv4 separately. We would like to acknowledge and thank Nick Stokes for noticing that there might be a problem with these data.

"July 15, 2015: Starting with today's update, the standard GISS analysis is no longer based on ERSST v3b but on the newer ERSST v4. Dr. Makiko Sato created some graphs and maps showing the effect of that change. More information may be obtained from NOAA's website."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

It only took a few weeks for GISS to adopt Karl et al, and I repeat, Fyfe, Mann et al reject NOAA's and NASA's "pause buster" adjustment. So back at 334,5 where Marco and CO'N man said, "Amazing how Karl apparently is so all-powerful that he even influences how NASA does its analysis," they were of course clueless as always. NASA copied NOAA and Karl runs NOAA's NCEI. The Nick Stokes mentioned in the NASA quote agrees with Bob Tisdale's analysis which I could have linked to if Laden hadn't banned it. Much like teaching calculus to savages.
--AGF

1540.9May16GMT

StevoR, who hasn't been right about anything yet, asks about the "mythical pause," claiming it's incompatible with LIA recovery. (Could it get any more ridiculous?) As I said a month ago, I could link you to lists of over 60 excuses for the pause but the knowledgeable websites are banned. Here's from the abstract of the first on the list:

"However, the most recent climate data [2], show global temperature development levelling off or even turning negative since 2001 in contrast to the anticipated course related to the steady increases in the concentration in the atmosphere of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane."
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/ACS_2014010909502804.pdf

And guess what? He never uses the word "pause"! He just mentions a "negative" trend. How can one who never had an intelligent thought in his life ever ask a relevant question?
--AGF

"It only took a few weeks for GISS to adopt Karl et al,"

ERSST v4 is not from Karl et al. Karl et al actually USE ERSST v4. ERSST v4 does come from NOAA, but so did the prior versions used.

And guess what else it says here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/
Please note that neither the land data nor the ocean data used in this analysis are the ones used in the NCEI paper "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" that appeared on June 4, 2015. For the ocean data, GISS still uses ERSST v3b rather than the newer ERSST v4, but will switch to that file next month, when we add the June 2015 data; the collection of land station data used in that paper includes many more sources than GHCN v3.3.0 and will probably be incorporated into a future GHCN v4.

2100.9May16GMT
Timeline:
Sept 2014: Oreskes goes on a rampage to abolish the word 'pause' https://twitter.com/NaomiOreskes/status/514794891348815872

May/June 2015: NOAA releases paper explaining temperature adjustments which eliminate the pause; changes the name from NCDC to NCEI

June 2015: GISS makes adjustments that serve to keep GISSTEMP up with NCEI, ostensibly by way of independent reconstructive lineage

Summer 2015: NCAR publication devoted to pause controversy: https://usclivar.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/Variations2015S…

Sept 2015: RSS adopts Karl et al (through whatever means)

Feb 2016: Fyfe et al challenge Karl et al
=============================================
The effects are:
1) To distance GISS and NOAA from HadCRUT and UAH;
2) To alienate a good share of climate scientists;
3) To warm sea surface temperature relative to night marine air temperature, hence:
4) To call into question the laws of thermodynamics, since evaporation tends to cool SST relative to air temperature:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/figure-12.png

Quite the string of coincidences, unless (upward) adjustments were so frequent that the stars are always aligned. But many of the faithful are dissenting, and it just doesn't work to call Mann and Santer deniers. Have at it, Tedesco. --AGF

"Sept 2015: RSS adopts Karl et al (through whatever means)"

This is even more amazing conspiracy nuttery. Then again, this *is* AGF, so expect more to come.

I *could* for example point out that HADCRUT adopted a new ocean temperature reconstruction well before NOAA and GISS did. I *could* point out that this increased the trend for HADCRUT to make it larger than that of NOAA, and that the latest GISS and NOAA trend are only a little bit larger than that of HADCRUT4 (not significant difference), but all of this will just make AGF dig deeper into conspiracy ideation, because *any* evidence, contrary or not, is evidence for a conspiracy!

Notice the difference: Tollefsen is making shit up about Karl contradicting the IPCC. Agf is making shit up that Tollefson said Karl did something to GISTEMP. Hell, Tollefsen doesn’t even mention GISTEMP.

Two different things. But the utterly stupid agf is too brain-dead to realise there is a difference.

Even with (the false) conspiracy theories about Karl and GISTEMP, the above two pieces of made-up shit (one by Tollefson and one by agf) are still different pieces of shit. The utterly stupid agf is still too brain-dead to realise they are not mutually exclusive.

1545.5May2016
Tedesco, we only have to go as far as yesterday's Washington Times to find some level of conspiracy, right at the top:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/9/obama-wh-shows-bad-faith…
And we could point out that the Washington Post would never report such a story, nor would any other liberal paper in the country. But not all climate fanatics are liars--some are just idiots, and it's hard to tell a crooked referee from an incompetent one.

Which are you and your colleagues? I don't know for sure, but it's interesting that an outsider named Nick Stokes saw the need to correct your numbers somehow. Are the before and after figures available to us, from either GISS or Stokes? Let's see what else. Here's a graph from BEST comparing HadCRUT and GISS and NCDC and BEST (4th chart):
http://berkeleyearth.org/berkeley-earth-temperature-update/
It shows GISS and NCDC well above HadCRUT and BEST just a few months before the Karl adjustment in apparent disagreement with the essence of your claim. Whatever adjustment HadCRUT may have made "well before NOAA and GISS did," the Karl adjustment to NOAA and the nearly simultaneous non-Karl adjustment to GISS certainly widened the distance between them, like I said. (Is a tenth of a degree significant?) So it seems you are not to be trusted. And I haven't mentioned ARGOS (directly) or the radiosonde data, which jive with UAH and used to jive with RSS before their big adjustment. And you've ignored Tisdale's graph. So whether it's a conspiracy of incompetence or of intent, you seem to be part of it.
--AGF

1700GMT
Possibly Tollefson did not distinguish between the working group drafts and the final, sanitized version of the 2013 IPCC report. What the Working Group I originally stated was this:

"In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence)."

Pachauri and his ideologue henchmen had no use for such "expert judgement." (We'll make the report say what we want it to say.) So we could possibly allow that CO'N man is technically correct as far as the finished product goes, but only at the expense of a doomsday world devoid of conspiracy, since any rational person would deem the censoring of "expert judgement" to conform to purposes of propaganda, to be conspiratorial.
--AGF

Oh for fucks sake AGF! Open conspiracy theories against the climatologists and the IPCC - thousands of climate scientists around the world who have spent years learning the intricacies and doing the maths and who would actually have a vested interest in disproving Global Overheating i.e. winning Nobel prizes and creating a revolution in basic physics & climatology - now? Seriously dude. I didn't think I could think much less of you but turns out I can.

As for having "no use for such expert judgement" - are you trying to set a world record in projection and break everyone's toughest tungsten strength irony meters or something?

@AGF #414 :

StevoR, ... ( Blatant AGF lie snipped) .. asks about the “mythical pause,” claiming it’s incompatible with LIA recovery.

I asked whether you believed in the mythical ""pause" BS and pointed out that if we're recovering from the LIA then the supposed and actually non-existent "pause" in this warming is not compatible with that either. Hardly a straight answer but I'll take that as a 'yes' and that you hold mutually incompatible positions and are too willfully ignorant or disingenuous to accept that fact. I don't think you are arguing in good faith here AGF.

As I said a month ago, I could link you to lists of over 60 excuses for the pause but the knowledgeable websites are banned.

No. Denialist anti-science propaganda sites are banned.

Knowledgeable websites are fine here for instances all the one's I've linked for you throughout this thread and you've deliberately ignored.

Here’s from the abstract of the first on the list:
“However, the most recent climate data [2], show global temperature development levelling off or even turning negative since 2001 in contrast to the anticipated course related to the steady increases in the concentration in the atmosphere of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane.”

Turns out AGF's linked paper :

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/ACS_2014010909502804.pdf

is titled Reduced Solar Activity Disguises Global Temperature Rise LOL! I kid you not folks! ;-)

It includes the following, immediately after AGFs typically cherry-picked and misleadingly out of context quote :

The purpose of this communication is to demonstrate that the reduced rate in the global temperature rise complies with expectations related to the decaying
level of solar activity according to the relation published in an earlier analysis [3]. Without the reduction in the
solar activity-related contributions the global temperatures would have increased steadily from 1980 to present.

Wow. Your own source completely and utterly refutes the case you're actually claiming it supports! Thanks I guess.
Did you think people wouldn't actually check your links AGF?

And guess what? He never uses the word “pause”! He just mentions a “negative” trend.

Gee I wonder why especially given the papers title eh?! Indeed, this papers author goes much further and quite literally concludes with :

"The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development. With a steady level of cycle-average solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013) in agreement with the increasing atmospheric concentrations of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [16], and not the levelling-off actually observed since 2001.

The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the
past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the
observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001. If solar activity starts increasing then the global temperatures may rise even steeper than that seen over the past three decades.

(Bold added in the forlorn hope that AGF might actually get it!)

So the whole point of that paper was saying the "pause" was
actually never there and that solar activity misled some people - like AGF - into wrongly concluding that it was real.

Again, thanks for the informative link and source that demolishes your own PRATTs and delusions!

Oh & it shall be noted here that you've failed to answer the other questions I asked in #412 & before.

Since you've been so kind already ;-) , please do so :

1) You,AGF, are saying the scientific consensus there like the one on Global Overheating is wrong because _____???

2) And that we should believe you over all those real climate scientists because ____??? (Fill in the blanks if you can!)

&

3. Volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating. What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims?

Pachauri and his ideologue henchmen had no use for such “expert judgement.

And with that outrageously inappropriate and libellous statement AGF further delves into the murk of gutter denial and reveals that he, like many of his ilk, are clueless about the nature of the IPCC and its work, probably because he is regurgitating something that has previously been regurgitated umpteen times.

Whatever, it has been explained over and over that any use of the term pause in this context was to describe a slow down in rate of surface temperature increase, and not that of the climate system, which includes the oceans, as a whole.

The way the term has been used by deniers is a mischaracterisation, often based upon the trend of one temperature data set (RSS) with cherry picked start and end dates. Thus it is cherry picking from picked cherries.

That later is made clear if one studies the three part report issued by the UK Met' Office . Do download and read closely using included external references to clarify if you don't understand something or wish to try to not understand it.

agf:

Possibly Tollefson did not distinguish between..

Possibly? Possibly? What a pathetic excuse for not realising that Tollefson's statement must be mistaken in at least some way.

“In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence).”

So fucking what? That is still not contradicted by what Karl said about the 1998-2012 trend not being statistically significant.

So we could possibly allow that CO’N man is technically correct

Absolutely pathetic.

a doomsday world devoid of conspiracy

It always comes back to a conspiracy theory.

More correctly, the 'pause'/'hiatus'/"negative trend" is part of the reason 97% of climate models run hot. That they run hot indicates the modelers don't have an adequate understanding of how climate responds to human interference, that climate sensitivity is lower than assumed, and that undesired consequences of GHGs have been exaggerated.

But I haven't been able to get a single response to my first post here: who is right--Oreskes or Hansen? Oreskes called Hansen a 'denier' for advocating a realistic energy approach to reducing CO2 emissions: nuclear energy. This in itself proves Oreskes doesn't care at all about global warming, let alone solutions to the supposed problem. She is only interested in advancing her Marxist agenda.

So as I have said several times before, it makes no difference whether we confess our sins of emission and recite the credo if we all go on our merry way sinning as before. Expenditure translates roughly into energy consumption. The wealthy cannot spend their money except on energy consumption. Hansen is at least smart enough to know that solar and wind power cannot replace fossil fuels, but nuclear energy can to a large extent. Oreskes doesn't really want a solution--only a victimized planet.

And you all, who can't understand these simple facts that undermine your belief system, can just keep on calling the agnostics deniers. We don't care, but we don't think any of you are very bright.
--AGF

"More correctly, the ‘pause’/’hiatus’/”negative trend” is part of the reason 97% of climate models run hot. That they run hot indicates the modelers don’t have an adequate understanding of how climate responds to human interference, that climate sensitivity is lower than assumed, and that undesired consequences of GHGs have been exaggerated."

Where has AGF been for the last three years? My pre-breakfast farts contain more logic than this dimwit has expended throughout these comments.

...the reason 97% of climate models run hot.

Which statement demonstrates that you know very little about climate models. How many different types there are, how many research teams from diverse countries are involved and that models are often run many times starting with different boundary conditions and/or time frames.

Go look up stuff about climate models, most good text books on the sciences behind climate change have sections on this as do reliable websites such as Real Climate, and Skeptical Science. Don't knock them until you have studied them.

There was also commentary on climate models in the Met' Office report I pointed you at above, which will give you clues.

We don’t care, but we don’t think any of you are very bright....

Said the Hatter looking into the mirror.

...and that undesired consequences of GHGs have been exaggerated.

And yet month by month this year we see reports like this: Average global temperature was 1.07C hotter - beating last month’s previous record increase and April was little better.

As for climate sensitivity, have you no idea about ECS or TCS and how there is inertia built into responses to GHG forcings. Go look this stuff up.

1800GMT

Lionel A, you don't seem to know the difference between climate and weather. Look them up. If the pause is not significant, your record hot months certainly aren't. There is only one reason 97% of models run hot: they don't reflect reality. And to deny that is to deny reality, which is all you alarmists know how to do.

And speaking of consensus, let's hear your guess for ECS. This picture is worth a million words: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png
And none of SS's BS can explain it away.

So Lionel A, what have you done to save the world today? Switched from jets to bikes? Campaigned for nuclear power? You're all just quacks. And hypocrites. --AGF

AGF

And speaking of consensus, let’s hear your guess for ECS. This picture is worth a million words: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png
And none of SS’s BS can explain it away.

Explain what away?

It is well understood that:

- natural variability overprints the forced signal over short timescales

- therefore nothing much about sensitivity can be inferred from a short period of observations

- and comparing single-instance observations with the multi-model mean is uninformative and potentially misleading

- and the forced signal dominates on multi-decadal / centennial timescales and that is the AGW problem

1930GMT
Getting back on track, here's a two year old obituary:

"Maynard Malcolm Miller, explorer, committed educator and noted scientist whose glaciological research was among the first to identify hard evidence of global climate change as a result of human industrial activity, died on January 26 at his home in Moscow, Idaho. He was 93."

That eulogy, "noted scientist whose glaciological research was among the first to identify hard evidence of global climate change as a result of human industrial activity," requires context. Here's what he was saying back in 79:

“…we are in the middle of or long overdue for some kind of Ice Age.” “…we are apparently dropping into a cooling phase.”

So here they are, claiming priority for climate change alarm, when the original alarm was in fact about cooling danger.
Here Miller is pushing warming while Motyka and Hartmann are a bit skeptical: http://juneauempire.com/stories/072703/loc_glaciers.shtml#.VzOE7ITyvcs
And who was concerned with CO2 warming in 1968? Fred Singer --see the introduction to Part I of "Global Effects of Environmental Pollution."
https://books.google.com/books?id=hWa0LcQNZhcC&printsec=frontcover&sour…
Some scientists are influenced by recent climate cycles and some aren't.
--AGF

AG Foster

Oreskes called Hansen a ‘denier’ for advocating a realistic energy approach to reducing CO2 emissions: nuclear energy. This in itself proves Oreskes doesn’t care at all about global warming, let alone solutions to the supposed problem. She is only interested in advancing her Marxist agenda.

Nonsense. It 'proves' nothing of the sort. At most, it shows that Oreskes probably doesn't understand the technical challenge of switching to 100% renewables very clearly. As for this rubbish about 'Marxist agendas', well that's just unhinged. Favouring a renewables-heavy future energy mix doesn't make anyone a Marxist.

So here they are, claiming priority for climate change alarm, when the original alarm was in fact about cooling danger.

Except that it wasn't. The majority scientific view has always been that CO2 will cause more warming.

2200GMT

BBD:

"So here they are..." refers to Miller's obituary writers. But your misinterpretation of the sentence is probably wrong too--we just don't have any polls from the 70s.

Oreskes attacked Frederick Seitz for his strident anticommunism in Merchants. She's anticapitalist. She's socialist. Those who know her consider her a Marxist, e.g.,
http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/10/who-is-bigger-hater-of-fundamental.ht…
And she's not opposed to unworkable renewables--like wind and solar--just workable ones like nuclear.

Thou hast misconstrued everything. --AGF

“So here they are…” refers to Miller’s obituary writers. But your misinterpretation of the sentence is probably wrong too–we just don’t have any polls from the 70s.

What misrepresentation?

Look at the contemporary evidence as reviewed in “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” Peterson, Thomas C., William M. Connolley, John Fleck, 2008: Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337. Which was referenced in the headpost.

Majority scientific opinion was that CO2 would cause warming.

Oreskes attacked Frederick Seitz for his strident anticommunism in Merchants. She’s anticapitalist. She’s socialist.

Seitz is old school Cold War nuts, AGF. Oresekes having a go at Fred's reactionary politics doesn't make her a Marxist. As for the view from rather right of centre provided by Lubos, well, he's not exactly a balanced commentator.

Thou hast misconstrued everything. –AGF

Um, no.

claiming priority for climate change alarm, when the original alarm was in fact about cooling danger

The original warnings, Schneider e.g., were conditional warnings - cooling conditional on aerosols - warming conditional on GHGs.

The warnings haven't changed, only the conditions.

Has Lubos called for Naomi's "liquidation" yet? (With him, it's less a threat than a bon Motl.)

agf:

If the pause is not significant

From your favourite citation:

"Recent studies have assessed whether or not trends during the slowdown are statistically different from trends over some earlier period. These investigations have led to statements such as “further evidence against the notion of a recent warming hiatus”4 or “claims of a hiatus in global warming lack sound scientific basis”9. While these analyses are statistically sound"

i.e. the slowdown was not statistically significant. I know how important statistical significance is to global warming denialists so I know they will want statistical significance before even considering the significance of a slowdown - unless they're shameless hypocrites of course.

Also from the brain-dead's favourite citation:

"The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown."

Poor recent warming slowdown, outlived by the legacy this new understanding.

agf:

that climate sensitivity is lower than assumed

According to your favourite citation, it means nothing of the sort:

"A different perspective on the role of internal variability is obtained through the analysis of the individual models
and realizations comprising the MME. In 10 out of 262 ensemble members, the simulations and observations had the same negative phase of the IPO during the slowdown period — that is, there was a fortuitous ‘lining up’ of internal decadal variability in the observed climate system and the 10 simulations15,16. These 10 ensemble members captured the muted early-twenty-first-century warming, thus illustrating the role of internal variability in the slowdown."

Thus the short-term slowdown was due to short term factors that are not incorporated into the climate models, except by chance, such as the IPO. This makes absolutely no difference to long term average outcomes which include climate sensitivity.

AGF

Lionel A, you don’t seem to know the difference between climate and weather.

So, clever clogs, what is the difference between climate and weather? This would be easy for you to answer if you had studied 'Atmosphere, Weather & Climate' by Roger G. Barry and Richard Chorley as I have. I still have the 1982 edition I used way back here.

And I note that, by your repetition of this '97%' BS that you still lack knowledge of the nature of models and on what they are constructed, think palaeoclimatology for one.

Now dropping in a chart from anywhere, shorn of context and even if from SkS is not the action of an honest broker.

However that is the nature of the particular climate models run to develop those particular scenarios. You will find that from which it is a crop, on page 131 of WGAR1AR5 final. If you think that is the product of '97% of climate models' then your are misinformed.

As for ESC and TSR (or TCS), what is the difference and why does it matter? Come on, stop avoiding and provide some substance.

As for ESC and TSR (or TCS)

Acronym alert:

TCR -> ECS -> ESS

And don't let's get started on 'effective climate sensitivity'...

Yep! I got my acronyms really muddled there whilst watching a computer out of the corner of my eye which had got a dose of uninvited Windows 10 updates which I was sorting. Grrr!

1750GMT
We have two sorts here, droolers and foamers. The simplest things go over everyone's head. Miller's obituary brags about him being one of the first to identify anthropogenic climate change, when the record shows the climate change he in fact promoted was global cooling. Too hard for everyone here.

The main point is this: global warming is a good thing, whatever is causing it. It has allowed agriculture in temperate zones where formerly there was none. Increased precipitation together with CO2 fertilization has greened the Sahel. It might possibly open the Arctic to navigation for part of the year. It might save us from another LIA or the next major glaciation. But it has not been sufficient to prevent the southern migration of the US citrus belt.

What are the dangers of warming? Nearly zilch. Far less at any rate than those of cooling. The coolers were right in every aspect except the worldwide starvation predicted by Bryson and a few others. Cold is bad. Warm is good.

BBD refers us to PCF like we hadn't discussed the hell out of it here. He has a lot of catching up to do. Lionel A thinks ECS and TCS aren't important or something. If it ain't quantified it ain't science. If we don't know how strong CO2 is we don't know squat. If it's weak, the citrus groves will continue to freeze--partly due to swamp draining in Florida--but not in Texas or California.

So what about sea level rise? Is that a problem? This is a threat on a par with the interstadial coming to an end: the time scale is millennial. 3mm/year with only imagined acceleration, such as by comparing the apples and oranges of satellite measurement against tide gauges. The gloom and doom is not based on observation but on worst case scenarios of ECS, which ECS remains unquantified, but necessarily lowered by the pause. An inch per decade. A foot per century, at present rates, which rates are largely a function of LIA recovery. It's a symptom of better days ahead. The LIA is over.

Cheer up. Bryson was wrong. So is Hansen.
--AGF

The main point is this: global warming is a good thing, whatever is causing it. [...] What are the dangers of warming? Nearly zilch.

Argument from assertion is a logical fallacy, not least when contradicted by pretty much the entire field of ecosystems science.

The gloom and doom is not based on observation but on worst case scenarios of ECS, which ECS remains unquantified, but necessarily lowered by the pause.

Wrong and debunked just a few comments above. Repeating tripe does not constitute an argument.

Lionel A thinks ECS and TCS aren’t important or something.

Foster (far from like your namesake) your comprehension is appalling if that is what you think.

So tell us do, what are are the differences between equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response? Stop ducking questions.

Other part of the question was for you to explain why it matters. Which was not an indicator of importance or other from myself.

As for warming being good — do your lying eyes deceive you about extreme weather event occurrences. As BBD writes the evidence from ecological systems is one of distress, think phenological disruption alone.

Now it is too late in the day here to go into further detail but that should be homework for you to do.

agf:

global warming is a good thing

A.k.a. the third stage of climate science denial (1st stage: there is no global warming, 2nd stage: humans aren't causing it).

But we've come to expect science denial from someone who makes shit up and cites made-up shit and thinks the two pieces of shit are mutually exclusive. Pieces of shit aren't mutually exclusive, they're just pieces of shit.

1540GMT
All the believers have to be educated from scratch--deprogrammed, degaussed, rehabilitated, weaned from junk science and decades of brainwashing. In a sane world the burden of proof is left to the doomsayers, not the skeptics. The ubiquitous junk science such as that which Lionel A links us to makes Bryson's predictions of a starving freezing world look reasonable by comparison. LA's link begins:

"Anthropogenic climate change is widely expected to drive species extinct by hampering individual survival and reproduction, by reducing the amount and accessibility of suitable habitat, or by eliminating other organisms that are essential to the species in question."

What better example of BBD's argument from assertion! Grand scale extinction from a return to Eemian conditions or worse: Pliocene even. Yeah, it was so cold around my place after a warm March that I thought my cherries and apricot blossoms wouldn't get fertilized, but they managed.

But this climate nonsense is throwing us back into the dark ages. Only junk science is funded. Only lying and incompetent scientists get grants. We're in big trouble. Polar bears starving and drowning (while their numbers increase). Armadillos heading back south (after moving north in the 70s). Birds changing routes and nests and crossing borders without documentation. It's total havoc, all because you refuse to buy a hybrid! What's going on?

Here's what, to name a few:
1) Worms are being introduced by gardeners and foresters to northern parts where they haven't been for tens of thousands of years.
2) Bird feeders are everywhere.
3) Growing cities provide unprecedented habitat for pigeons and swallows.
4) European starlings largely replaced extinct passenger pigeons in North America.
5) Forests continue to be cleared for agriculture and wood pellet burning.
6) Forest fires have been prevented, radically altering the natural ecosystem.
7) Roads in forests facilitate predation.

And so on. And in the midst of this global environmental disruption these biologists claim to detect problems created by a one degree temperature change, and try to tell us climate change is the main problem threatening species, not whaling, fishing, logging, deforestation, exotic species introduction, etc. We are dealing with nothing but junk science and you rabidupes are the perpetrators. And you try to teach us?

Now about that TCS. Short term GHG forcing plus feedbacks, with the primary feedback expected to be water vapor. Generally, more H2O in the troposphere amplifies; more in the stratosphere attenuates. What's happening?
Total column over the ocean increasing a little:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-20.html
Precipitable H2O holding fairly steady:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/fig4c_tpw.jpg
Global relative humidity decreasing significantly:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GlobalRelativeHumi…
Specific humidity at 400mb decreasing markedly:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SH400mb.jpg
So H2O feedback may well be negative, possibly sufficiently negative to counteract CO2 altogether.

Makes a hot spot hard to find. In fact it was not identified till May 2015 when innovative statistical analysis made it show up where none had seen it before. 2015 was a good year. And in September RSS, which formerly showed the best (negative) pause, was adjusted enough to replace the pause with a hot spot. It was a very good year. Whereas previously RSS and UAH and radiosondes were closing the gap with surface measurements--against theory--novel interpretation brought all the old sensors in line with the dogma. Marvelous these mathematical advances. And the rabidupes eat it all up.
--AGF

GISS and NCDC well above HadCRUT and BEST

BTW, regarding the "adjustment" period 1998-2012 inclusive, GISS now shows 0.103±0.142℃/decade while BEST now shows 0.096±0.136℃/decade. Saying the former is "well above" the latter is just making shit up. Obviously BEST are part of the Great Global Warming Conspiracy.

What better example of BBD’s argument from assertion!

The quote isn't an argument from assertion. It is backed by pretty much the whole field of ecosystems science. The only person arguing from assertion counter to the mainstream scientific position is you, AGF. Please try to keep this in mind - it's the second time I've had to remind you.

* * *

So H2O feedback may well be negative, possibly sufficiently negative to counteract CO2 altogether.

Then how do you explain past climate variability? Let's take the example of deglaciation under orbital forcing (Milankovitch forcing). Total solar irradience during deglaciation is virtually unchanged. All that happens is that orbital dynamics reorganise seasonal and spatial insolation without increasing the total amount. Yet this is sufficient to trigger an increase in global average temperature of >4C. That is absolely robust evidence for the dominance of postitive feedbacks in the climate system. You need to think more carefully about what you are claiming. I would also recommend a good textbook on physical climatology as your topic knowledge is extremely weak.

And the rabidupes eat it all up.

If you want to be dismissed as a nutter, keep up with the conspiracy theory nonsense. If you want to be taken seriously - even a little bit - put the tinfoil away.

Only and final warning.

1930GMT
BBD, if you look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:Vostok_42…
you'll see that 60ppm CO2 correspond to 10C, which is one hell of a forcing to blame on CO2. The most that has been attributed to CO2 and the ice ages is a little amplification. If you look lower on the chart you'll see that insolation varies over 100W at 65N in June, two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 forcing, and which is clearly what triggers the show. Not a tiny bit of CO2. So we see as always, you don't know the first thing about climatology, yet here you are parading you ignorance for all to see, and resorting to arguments of consensus and authority. Next you'll insist a peregrine falcon can stoop at 240mph.

Was Lysenkoism a conspiracy? --AGF

The most that has been attributed to CO2 and the ice ages is a little amplification.

First, I'm not arguing that deglaciation is forced by CO2 alone. CO2 and CH4 are *feedbacks* - positive feedbacks - to changing seasonal and spatial insolation, itself modulated by orbital dynamics. Just so we are clear.

If you look lower on the chart you’ll see that insolation varies over 100W at 65N in June, two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 forcing, and which is clearly what triggers the show.

See above.

Not a tiny bit of CO2. So we see as always, you don’t know the first thing about climatology, yet here you are parading you ignorance for all to see, and resorting to arguments of consensus and authority.

See above.

The point we were discussing was whether or not there is evidence for a strong *negative* feedback - you brought up water vapour - which could counteract the effects of radiative perturbation. Deglaciation under orbital forcing illustrates that the climate system must be dominated by *positive* feedbacks because total energy input (global TSI) changes very little during deglaciation but the climate system warms up by >4C. This is only possible if the net of all feedbacks is positive. If a strong negative feedback existed, it would have prevented deglaciation. The Pleistocene ice age would not be punctuated by interglacials.

* * *

So we see as always, you don’t know the first thing about climatology, yet here you are parading you ignorance for all to see

:-)

You need a good textbook. Try Ruddiman Earth's Climate: Past and Future (2nd Edition). Don't buy the 3rd Ed because you don't need to spend the considerable extra money. The 2nd Ed is fine and by no means obsolete. $10 - $30 USD is a bargain if you are more interested in the science of physical climatology than pushing a political peanut.

2045GMT

You have obviously never read a good text book. "See above" and "see above" doesn't add much. Anyone who tries to dismiss orbital forcing by way of globally averaged insolation and thinks a fraction of a watt of CO2 amplification constitutes significant feedback, aint up to par on the subject.

First thing, asymmetric albedo. The 100W cycle has little effect on the S hemisphere, huge effect on the N. Land ice area is relatively constant in the S; highly variable in the N. The albedo feedback alone swamps CO2 feedback. And methane is pretty much a farce as feedbacks go.

So insolation varies over a max of 100W through orbital forcing. Southern albedo is fairly constant long term; only sea ice varies much. As long as the northern ice melts faster than it snows, the ice diminishes, and vise versa. And you think M cycles can't do that? The global average doesn't trigger squat. The 100W cycle, together with albedo and cloud feed back, make your GHG's and H2O feedback look like peanuts.

What does it take to melt a km of ice in 10ky? 3W/m^2.
You're just talking junk science.
--AGF

You have obviously never read a good text book. “See above” and “see above” doesn’t add much. Anyone who tries to dismiss orbital forcing by way of globally averaged insolation and thinks a fraction of a watt of CO2 amplification constitutes significant feedback, aint up to par on the subject.

Are you being deliberately stupid?

Here's what I wrote:

First, I’m not arguing that deglaciation is forced by CO2 alone. CO2 and CH4 are *feedbacks* – positive feedbacks – to changing seasonal and spatial insolation, itself modulated by orbital dynamics. Just so we are clear.

See above. Idiot. And stop strawmanning me to avoid engaging on the actual issue, which is your being wrong about negative feedbacks. See above.

First thing, asymmetric albedo.

Not in dispute. Strawman.

The albedo feedback alone swamps CO2 feedback. And methane is pretty much a farce as feedbacks go.

Albedo is *larger* but you are grossly over-stating the case. The combined forcing increase from CO2 and CH4 (~18ka - 11.5ka interval) was ~2W/m^2 which is most definitely climatologically significant (eg. IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch 6).

So insolation varies over a max of 100W through orbital forcing.

It's about 40W/m^2 and only at high north latitude in summer. You are over-stating again.

The global average doesn’t trigger squat.

More straw. I never said that it did.

The 100W cycle, together with albedo and cloud feed back, make your GHG’s and H2O feedback look like peanuts.

The key problem is that you don't really know what you are talking about.

Here's how deglaciation actually works:

- NH summer insolation increases from ~21.5ka especially at high latitudes

- By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC
[THC fact sheet: see fig. 2]

- NH now *cools* as equatorial >>> poleward heat transport stops

- With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must

- Deep water warming in SH ocean causes release of carbon to atmosphere. This positive feedback globalises and amplifies the warming

- NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback

- Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins

See eg. Shakun et al. (2012).

You’re just talking junk science.

Please stop the aggressive bullshitting. It should be obvious by now that I know you are bluffing. You aren't fooling me. You couldn't.

Now, you were wrong about negative feedback. You are wrong about CO2 not being a necessary part of the system of positive feedbacks to orbital forcing. What next?

What next?

Desperation bullshit. Piled higher & deeper.

1350GMT
BBD, in comparing modern short term climate variability and feed backs to ice ages you jumped the ship. They are not comparable.

First off, why don't you explain to us what causes the variability in CO2 and CH4?

Here's what you said at 449: " Total solar irradience during deglaciation is virtually unchanged. All that happens is that orbital dynamics reorganise seasonal and spatial insolation without increasing the total amount. Yet this is sufficient to trigger an increase in global average temperature of >4C. That is absolely robust evidence for the dominance of postitive feedbacks in the climate system."

They are not analogous.

Concerning insolation cycles you state: "It’s about 40W/m^2 and only at high north latitude in summer. You are over-stating again."

Where do you get that? I already referred you to a chart indicating 100W peak to peak. Did the Vostok group lie? And here's http://www.clim-past.net/12/1119/2016/
asserting :
"The transient experiments indicate a highly inhomogeneous early Holocene temperature warming over different regions. The climate in Alaska was constantly cooling over the whole Holocene, whereas there was an overall fast early Holocene warming in northern Canada by more than 1 °C kyr−1 as a consequence of progressive LIS decay."

And what could be more absurd than "its... only at high north latitude in summer"? Where do you think it matters? It matters where the ice is, you idiot. Where the ice melts when it gets an extra 40 or 50W over the average (80 or 100 over the minimum).

So again, what makes CO2 and CH4 oscillate? Temperature, and nothing more. Only the slightest circular feedback. What drives T? Insolation, the presence or lack of ice, clouds, etc. Do you have benthic evidence for your NADW and AMOC modeling? Or is it just...modeling?

At minus 50W the ice doesn't melt. At plus 50 it does. Where T = 0C, that is, not at the South Pole. And the ice doesn't give a hoot about 1W global CO2 feed back.

Time to start over. --AGF

BBD, in comparing modern short term climate variability and feed backs to ice ages you jumped the ship. They are not comparable.

Why? Physics hasn't changed. If feedbacks net positive, then the climate system is going to respond to *any* radiative perturbation. Including increased anthropogenic CO2 forcing.

First off, why don’t you explain to us what causes the variability in CO2 and CH4?

Assuming you are referring to glacial/interglacial cycles then, as explained, they are feedbacks to orbital forcing. My point is simply that they are *positive* feedbacks. They amplify the warming because they are efficacious climate forcings.

They are not analogous.

A positive feedback is a positive feedback. And you can't get from a 0.2% global insolation boost at TOA to >4C surface temperature change without positive feedbacks.

The point about positive feedbacks is that they offset lukewarm rhetoric.

Where do you get that? I already referred you to a chart indicating 100W peak to peak.

I think you've misunderstood the graph you linked earlier. This shows data from the Vostock ice core extending back ~420ka. Insolation at 65 degrees north latitude is presented at the bottom of the graph (bottom curve: orange). Magnitude is plotted on the vertical axis and the units are joules not W/m^2.

The increase from the LGM to peak values ~12ka is about 60J.

I think you’ve misunderstood the graph you linked earlier. This shows data from the Vostock ice core extending back ~420ka. Insolation at 65 degrees north latitude is presented at the bottom of the graph (bottom curve: orange). Magnitude is plotted on the vertical axis and the units are joules not W/m^2.

Nope, that's me confused, and hands up.

The increase from the LGM to peak values ~12ka is about 60 Wm^2. Conservatively.

Nothing else I have said changes.

0115GMT16May16
To my question:
"First off, why don’t you explain to us what causes the variability in CO2 and CH4?"
BBD replies:
"Assuming you are referring to glacial/interglacial cycles then, as explained, they are feedbacks to orbital forcing. My point is simply that they are *positive* feedbacks. They amplify the warming because they are efficacious climate forcings."

I don't understand--the answer seems too vague. Let me ask further, why are the three responses (T, CO2, CH4) so closely correlated?
--AGF

I don’t understand–the answer seems too vague. Let me ask further, why are the three responses (T, CO2, CH4) so closely correlated?

Why don't you just read the references?

God Bless BBD. Red-headed Foster children, like dead horses, can be exhausting.

They say you "can't fix stupid", but OMG, stupid coupled with raging political agenda is just insufferable... (I think it's because the one reinforces the other.)

"I don’t understand–the answer seems too vague. Let me ask further, why are the three responses (T, CO2, CH4) so closely correlated?"

(This suggests a sincere attempt at understanding, and I don't want to belittle that in any way.")

Antarctic sea ice extent in the Southern Ocean modulating the ventilation of bottom waters. See eg. Ferrari et al. (2014).

1905GMT
Over at WUWT Shakun et al was appropriately deconstructed four years ago. To quote myself from a comment made I made (4/6/12, 1156AM) :

"As most know, the great advantage of the ice cores is that multiple data are contained in close proximity in the ice. CO2 is locked in within a century or two of snowing, and the lag can be estimated and accounted for. So mixing in other proxies can only obfuscate."

The Vostok core compares CO2 and CH4 with δ18O with great precision, and it's marvelous how well the first two correspond to reconstructed T. A primary task for the climatologist is to account at least for correlation between CO2 and CH4. The best, general explanation for the correlation is that the three mainly reflect ice sheet extension. With above average TOA insolation the ice melts rapidly, eventually (after several thousand years) uncovering organic debris, releasing CO2 and CH4 nearly in tandem with T rise, and providing no evidence per se of GHG warming, let alone TCS. If you have a better explanation for CO2/CH4 correlation, I'm all ears.

Cf. this with the Vostok graph and you get an idea how useless is Shakun et al compared to a good ice core: https:// +
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nature_shakun_proxies_plus_co2.jpg
--AGF

I think Ferrari helps a little. Mearns states my case as well as I could: http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/
--AGF

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/12/duet-on-ice-more-denier-silliness-at…

You broke my heart, Foster.

Over at WUWT Shakun et al was appropriately deconstructed four years ago.

No it wasn't. If you think the confusion at WUWT constitutes a scientific critique of S12 then you are mistaken. Please don't reference this misinformation blog again. If there was a valid problem with S12 then it would be detailed in a reply in the literature. Where is that reply?

If you want to discuss science, then deal in science. Same goes for Mearns' stuff. He's just wrong and badly out of date. If he knew what he was talking about, he would be aware that the 'CO2 lags temperature' meme is a debunked contrarian talking point, not a valid scientific perspective.

releasing CO2 and CH4 nearly in tandem with T rise, and providing no evidence per se of GHG warming, let alone TCS

(TCS -> TCR )

This is physics denial. You are claiming that there is no climate forcing from GHGs, which isn't something I am going to waste time arguing about. It's Sky Dragon lunacy that is supposed to be banned even at WUWT.

Read Shakun 12 instead of WUWT. In the real world, ice albedo alone is not sufficient to account for the temperature difference between the LGM and the pre-industrial Holocene. You need another radiative term. We've already established that *globally* TSI barely changes during deglaciation so we need something else and that something is GHG forcing. See eg. Hansen & Sato (2012):

The altered boundary conditions that maintained the climate change between these two periods had to be changes on Earth's surface and changes of long-lived atmospheric constituents, because the incoming solar energy does not change much in 20,000 years. Changes of long-lived GHGs are known accurately for the past 800,000 years from Antarctic ice core data (Luthi et al., 2008; Loulergue et al., 2008). Climate forcings due to GHG and surface albedo changes between the LGM and Holocene were approximately 3 and 3.5 W/m2, respectively, with largest uncertainty (±1 W/m2) in the surface change (ice sheet area, vegetation distribution, shoreline movement) due to uncertainty in ice sheet sizes (Hansen et al., 1984; Hewitt and Mitchell, 1997).

Almost *half* the RF necessary to drive the LGM - Holocene transition is from GHGs.

So mixing in other proxies can only obfuscate

[...]

Cf. this with the Vostok graph and you get an idea how useless is Shakun et al compared to a good ice core

No, this is incorrect. You are still ignoring the process of deglaciation which I outlined above. It isn't globally simultaneous; there is hemispheric antiphase on millennial timescales. Pointing to an Antarctic core and saying that the rest of a global analysis is wrong because it is out of phase with the Antarctic shows that you have failed to understand this at the most basic level:

– NH summer insolation increases from ~21.5ka especially at high latitudes

– By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC

– NH now *cools* as equatorial >>> poleward heat transport stops

– With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must

– Deep water warming in SH ocean causes release of carbon to atmosphere. This positive feedback globalises and amplifies the warming

– NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback

– Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins

It's all in Shakun et al. If you read the actual science and not contrarian misinformation blogs you have at least a hope of sorting out the mess. I can't do it for you.

1335GMT
BBD sounds like Pravda dissing Radio Free Europe. Next he'll be denouncing Climate Audit as science denial. SS is the propaganda site; WUWT draws on scientists everywhere to expose the junk science. Y'all need to get politically educated, and as your first lesson I suggest: http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

Where you will read tidbits like this: """

Focus. Wait, it is juicy, it is devastating, it is priceless stuff. Tom Wigley to Jones:

Phil,

I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me.
At the very least MBH [the hockey stick] is a very sloppy piece of work -- an opinion I have held for some time. [Although not in public.]
Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? -- or is it?
I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too
deep into this to be helpful.
Tom.
Phil's reply:

you cannot trust anything that M&M write. MBH is as good a way of putting all the data together as others. ...
Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Must go to Florence now. """
========================================
No, I never said there is no GHG forcing; I said we don't know what the feedbacks are. We can't quantify ECS or TCS and until we do we don't even know for sure they're not negative (however unlikely that might be). And after making silly claims about strawmen you really do it with:
"Pointing to an Antarctic core and saying that the rest of a global analysis is wrong because it is out of phase with the Antarctic shows that you have failed to understand this at the most basic level.." You're just making this crap up.

Insolation is measured in watts. A watt is a joule per second. It only takes three watts to melt a km of ice in 10ky, and for a few months of the year when conditions are right the ice gets a whole lot more than that, plus feedback. Ergo, the primary response to insolation is ice sheet extension, of which CO2 and CH4 are merely symptoms with unknown and possibly insignificant amplification. Ice ages don't tell us squat about their ECS and it's quackery to claim otherwise.

--AGF

BBD sounds like Pravda dissing Radio Free Europe.

Don't be ridiculous. It has exactly the opposite effect you intend: it telegraphs that you have lost the argument and are desperately trying to deflect attention from the fact.

As for the rest of the misdirection - in all the years since MBH99, nobody has ever shown it to be substantially flawed. Instead, every subsequent millennial temperature reconstruction has *confirmed* that the study - the first of its kind, let's not forget - was essentially correct. And that's the end of the matter. I'm not going to revisit the hockey stick wars in 2016.

No, I never said there is no GHG forcing; I said we don’t know what the feedbacks are. We can’t quantify ECS or TCS and until we do we don’t even know for sure they’re not negative (however unlikely that might be).

We *do* know they are not negative and events like deglaciation prove it. I have explained all this in some detail now and I'm not going to do it again. If you cannot follow the discussion, you should leave it, or at the very least, go back and read the thread until you understand the topic better.

And after making silly claims about strawmen you really do it with:
“Pointing to an Antarctic core and saying that the rest of a global analysis is wrong because it is out of phase with the Antarctic shows that you have failed to understand this at the most basic level..” You’re just making this crap up.

No, you are. Go back and read what I wrote carefully. Either this is going over your head or you aren't paying sufficient attention.

Ice ages don’t tell us squat about their ECS and it’s quackery to claim otherwise.

Redundant proof that you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about. If you only read the references you would realise just how daft some of the things you say really are:

The empirical fast-feedback climate sensitivity that we infer from the LGM-Holocene comparison is thus 5°C/6.5 W/m2 ~ ¾ ± ¼ °C per W/m2 or 3 ± 1°C for doubled CO2. The fact that ice sheet and GHG boundary conditions are actually slow climate feedbacks is irrelevant for the purpose of evaluating the fast-feedback climate sensitivity.

This empirical climate sensitivity incorporates all fast response feedbacks in the real-world climate system, including changes of water vapor, clouds, aerosols, aerosol effects on clouds, and sea ice. In contrast to climate models, which can only approximate the physical processes and may exclude important processes, the empirical result includes all processes that exist in the real world – and the physics is exact.

You need to read a decent textbook and stop trying to bluff your way through discussions like these. You cannot do it. Surely this is obvious to you by now?

Do you *want* me to start openly mocking you?

Since ancient citations of Tom Wigley are in fashion, here is what he says:

The human-induced changes that are expected over the next 100 years are much, much greater than any changes that societies experienced in the past. Much greater.

1710GMT

BBD: "Do you *want* me to start openly mocking you?"

This from a guy who thinks you can get different numbers by switching from watts to joules. We can't even predict water vapor and cloud feedback in the present climate regime, and BBD thinks that can be done with tolerable precision over ice ages, sufficienty, anyway, to estimate ECS. We don't know the ancient extent of sea ice or shallow land ice. We can only guess what ocean currents were doing, and whether the Volga was flowing into the Caspian or the Arctic, or how much of the melting is due to rain brought up from the tropics (dependent on equatorial insolation).

After the Eemian peaked CO2 stayed high for 15ky while T plummeted, apparently in response to falling insolation. CO2 couldn't save our ancestors from the last ice age and we'll be lucky if it saves us from the next, Callendar's optimism notwithstanding.

BBD: "As for the rest of the misdirection – in all the years since MBH99, nobody has ever shown it to be substantially flawed."
======================
What a load of BS. Wigley thought it was garbage; Edward Cook called it a "mess." And this is from CRU insiders. Groves and Switzur swiftly trashed it, as have the glaciologists ever since, universally, indirectly. And Mann has not attracted a single amicus brief in his spat with Steyn. Steyn's book says it all ("In Their Own Words...").

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no LIA in the hockey stick. If you do understand that then what you don't understand is that glaciologists have never doubted a global LIA--not in 1998, not now. Never read a glacier paper? Try to find one that doesn't accept a global LIA. Good luck.

--AGF

You are spouting nonsense again.

This from a guy who thinks you can get different numbers by switching from watts to joules.

No, I misread the units on the Y axis. You, on the other hand misrepresented the graph itself and increased ~60W/m^2 to 100W/m^2 while simultaneously omitting to mention that this was for June at 65N latitude. And you have yet to acknowledge your errors. Or any of the dozens of others now pointed out to you on this thread.

Spare me the climate agnosia and read the references. I'm not interested in your rhetoric. Produce a referenced argument or concede that you have lost this one.

What you don’t seem to understand is that there is no LIA in the hockey stick. If you do understand that then what you don’t understand is that glaciologists have never doubted a global LIA–not in 1998, not now. Never read a glacier paper? Try to find one that doesn’t accept a global LIA. Good luck.

PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

After the Eemian peaked CO2 stayed high for 15ky while T plummeted, apparently in response to falling insolation.

Climate responds to the net of forcings. Not just CO2 or just insolation or just aerosols. So at a period when NH summer insolation has reduced to the point where NH ice sheets are growing it's no surprise to see GAT falling faster than CO2 ppmv. Only a contrarian could possible think this constitutes an argument.

2030GMT
Back at #451, I said: "insolation varies over 100W at 65N in June," which BBD now denies. But we know he ignored it, or he would not have mistaken J for joules rather than June, nor would he have accused me of having misled him by leaving it out. And any scientist (which BBD obviously isn't) would not need to be informed that insolation is measured in watts, that watts and joules measure different energies: kinetic and potential, hence are not interchangeable as units of measurement, but if by some sort of sloppy shorthand they were used interchangeably, there would be a one to one correspondence and no room for different values. Nor would he need to be taught the difference between zero to peak, and peak to peak amplitudes of waves. But I did point that out, and now BBD is trying to save face by lying.

And he hopes to save face by spouting alarmist rhetoric purporting to back MBH98. BBD would learn more simply by reading my comments than by all his scriptures of doom. He doesn't know about MWP logs turning up at lots of glaciers on various continents in both hemispheres. He needs to be educated from scratch.

There is no such thing as a scientific argument between a priest of climate doom and a free thinker. (Hey, BBD, should we invest in nuclear power like Hansen says?)
--AGF

More desperate misdirection and no admission of errors.

From #430 onwards:

1/ Wrongly claims that the non-existent pause imlies lower climate sensitivity

2/ Wrongly claims that the dangers from warming are 'nearly zilch' (a lunatic statement, if there ever was)

3/ Wrongly claims that ECS 'remains unquantified' although a best estimate of ~3C has been accepted for decades

4/ Wrongly claims (again, despite correction) that the non-pause lowers ECS

5/ Wrongly claims that 'only junk science is funded [and] only lying scientists get grants' (more lunacy)

6/ Wrongly claims that WV is flat or decreasing

7/ Wrongly claims that WV feedback may be negative

8/ Wrongly claims that RSS data were falsified

9/ Wrongly claims that CO2 plays no part in deglacial climate change

10/ Wrongly claims that albedo 'swamps' CO2 feeedback during deglaciation

11/ Wrongly claims that modern and palaeoclimate variability are not comparible, thus implying that the laws of physics are mutable over time

12/ Wrongly claims that insolation at 65N latitude increases by 100W/m^2 despite linking a chart clearly showing 60W/m^2

13/ Wrongly claims that a crank denier blog has found errors in Shakun 12

14/ Wrongly claims that CO2 has no climatological effect during deglaciation (again)

15/ Wrongly claims that Shakun 12 invalidated by Vostock core data, showing total failure to understand deglacial process

16/ Wrongly claims significant errors in MBH99

17/ Wrongly claims feedbacks may be negative (again, despite repeated correction)

18/ Wrongly claims it is impossible to extract ECS estimate from LGM Holocene transition (again)

19/ Wrongly claims Late MIS5e CO2 vs T shows that CO2 is not an efficacious forcing

20/ Wrongly claims that there was a defined, global and sychronous LIA event

21/ Wrongly claims that There is no such thing as a scientific argument between a priest of climate doom and a free thinker. (Hey, BBD, should we invest in nuclear power like Hansen says?)

Yes, of course we should expand nuclear. And you aren't a 'free thinker' - you are a dogmatist pushing a political peanut. I have never claimed to be a scientist but I do understand the basics at a level considerable higher than you do. Look up: QED.

Stop bluffing and admit your errors.

AGF is indeed a free thinker, free to think what he likes. His mistake is in thinking that that automatically equates to being a good thinker -- in itself an indication that he is in over his head. In fact he is, among other things, completely free of some basic tools required for quality, original thought.

0115.19MAY2016GMT
BBD's #1 is all we need to see he is an irrational dupe and ideological tool of climate quackery--a dogmatist of doom. The CRU emails show the conspirators were worried about the pause clear back in 2009 (with 5 years to go):
http://www.di2.nu/foia/1255523796.txt
And the lying fools like BBD now deny there ever was a "pause." Hacked emails? No, leaked by an insider with an intellectual conscience.
--AGF

Kevin Trenberth:

If it (buried heat) is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later

Funny about that. Now that global temperature has skyrocketed, talk about a “pause” of global warming only embarrasses the deniers who so craved it. Unless they're utterly shameless and brain-dead, that is.

BBD’s #1 is all we need to see he is an irrational dupe and ideological tool of climate quackery–a dogmatist of doom. [...]

And the lying fools like BBD now deny there ever was a “pause.”

How can I be both an irrational dupe and a lying fool? Dupes believe what they say and so by definition cannot be lying :-)

Anyway, leaving aside the mess that you mistake for coherent argument, let's get back to the science.

Like so many confused contrarians, you are conflating the troposphere with the climate system as a whole - a basic but serious error. The climate system as a whole is predominantly ocean. So a modest and brief slowdown in the rate of surface warming cannot by any means be described as a 'pause' in 'global warming'. First, it is a slowdown, not a 'pause'. Second, since OHC for the 0 - 2000m layer continues to shoot up, global warming continues unabated.

This is exactly the kind of muddle that contrarians fill each others' minds with and which could be readily dispelled if they simply stuck to the science.

Who is the dogmatic dupe? Who is the fool? Who is irrational?

...stick to the science...

Well, in most cases that's just not going to happen. In terms of argument, the situation is simple to describe. Conspiracy theory is the organizing principle, motivated reasoning is the method. That's it. And it's an idee fixe.

The psychology is a bit more complicated to describe, but suffice it to say, I doubt that even one in a thousand is capable of mustering the resources and sorting themselves out to the point where they can stick to the science.

Stick to the science? But, but, but... that's a terrible distraction to staying on script with the idee fixe.

Every sentence must contain a word from { alarmist, doom, quackery, ideological tool, dogmatist, conspirators, fools, lying, mistaken, flawed, crap, cannot trust, propaganda, junk science, squat, farce, obviously, ignorance, dupes, nonsense, dark ages, incompetent, doomsayers, brainwashing, hypocrites, Marxist, exaggerated, rampage, savages, clueless, doom prophet, ignoramuses, liars, misrepresented, trolls, demonize, mistake, irrelevant, alarm machine, full of crap, con man, unsupported, feeble, mindless, morons, contempt, dubious, blabberbox, crooked, broken, gibberish, refuted, fanatics, priests of climate doom, wayward, depraved, heretical, poison, self justification, parrots the propaganda, radical, cherry picker, abandoned, dishonest, disparagement, know-nothing, knee jerk response, intentionally confuse, doomsday, cheating, contradicts, non sequitur, corruption, claims, total inability, pinhead, reject, drooler, fishy, insignificant, fiddled with, fiasco, waste of time, alarm bells, hysteria, obfuscate, absolutely hopeless, gullible, fails, brainwash, radical, sucker, stupid, jackass, idiot, babble, retarded, perpetual liars, arrogance, silly notion, sacred, unrealistic, deluded, moron, imbecilic, congenital liar, load of BS, warm mongering, ideological goal, scare, alchemists, voodoo science, nincompoops, horrendous, zealous, babbling, inane, thick-skulled, band wagon, crackpots, delusion, setup, climate credo, naysayers, censorship, bankrupt, disaster, pathological }

All of the above list was culled from a quick survey of AGF's blather. He seems to be cycling through the dictionary of disparaging terms. Perhaps he's actually a bot...

That's a fine collation, Brainstorms. We should do a word cloud :-)

http://www.wordle.net/create

* * *

OA

Well, in most cases that’s just not going to happen.

I know, I know. But one has to try. At least once.

1555GMT
BBD and the CO'N man have just learned about "where the heck is global warming," proving the pause that both have been denying. How does the CO'N man respond? The recent spike is what matters, not a decade and a half of no warming. The coolers had much longer weather to worry about than two years of warming.

BBD responds to having just learned about the pause by blaming the oceans. OK:
1) The oceans were there before the pause and the models.
2) A mechanism for switching warming from the air to the water ought to be identified. No such thing was predicted and no such thing has been identified, except as natural cycles apply.
3) The pause is older than ARGO; ARGO has measured a twentieth of a degree of warming to a depth of 2km over its decade of existence.
4) Without an identified mechanism for current ocean warming it is safe to blame it on LIA recovery.
5) The thermal inertia it supplies is a good thing, tempering atmospheric cycles and potentially retarding a new LIA.
6) When oceans are heating ice is not melting and the sea is not rising: steric SLR requires far more energy than eustatic rise.

So yesterday BBD was a dupe, eating up the no pause propaganda. Today he is explaining away the pause with sea inertia propaganda. Does he believe it? Maybe. Does he still believe in the pause? I guess not. Can he be a fool and a dupe and a liar at the same time? No problem.
--AGF

I agree it's probably worth doing-- for the sake of the peanut gallery if nothing else.

Short term, I'm inclined to marginalize. But that's just me.

IMO however, there is a huge pothole on the road to sensible discussion when it comes to metaliteracy. Just my 2 cents here, but in general I think it needs a lot more attention and development than it's getting.

AGF would immediately vomit forth accusations of dogmatic liberal-Marxist word cloud quackery and alarmism, then point to Michael Mann colluding to falsify the cloud to form a imaginary hockey stick that hides a MWP (Medieval Wordsmithing Period), and argue that the LIA (Linguistic Idiom Analytics) has given way to a warming word pause that's being obfuscated by pinhead naysayers peddling voodoo language science in an attempt to dupe gullible people into becoming brainwashed to believe retarded babble coming from congenital liars who are full of crap, all in the name of following an exaggerated ideological world climate credo blabbered by thick-skulled, drooling prophets of doom...

2040GMT
To what should I compare this bloggersville diversion? It would seem I have staged a simultaneous chess exhibition in a sanitarium. They call the pieces horses and castles and they move every which way, but the players call me a cheat and claim they won. No use trying to teach them how to play.
--AGF

1) The oceans were there before the pause and the models.

So?

2) A mechanism for switching warming from the air to the water ought to be identified. No such thing was predicted and no such thing has been identified, except as natural cycles apply.

Increase in wind-driven ocean circulation: England et al. (2014).

3) The pause is older than ARGO; ARGO has measured a twentieth of a degree of warming to a depth of 2km over its decade of existence.

That required a *hell* of a lot of energy! And the point is that energy accumulation was rapid and unabated during the misnomered 'pause'. So there has been no 'pause' or even slowdown in the rate of global warming when correctly defined as the accumulation of energy in the climate system as a whole.

4) Without an identified mechanism for current ocean warming it is safe to blame it on LIA recovery.

Oceans warm as the troposphere warms. If you want a detailed explanation, I will provide it.

5) The thermal inertia it supplies is a good thing, tempering atmospheric cycles and potentially retarding a new LIA.

Why would there be a new LIA when the current radiative imbalance will only equilibriate when ocean thermal intertia has yielded up about another 0.6C warming (assuming atmospheric CO2 was somehow stabilised tomorrow at 400ppm)?

6) When oceans are heating ice is not melting and the sea is not rising: steric SLR requires far more energy than eustatic rise.

Um? The ocean is already warm enough to melt ice. As forcing increases and the ocean warms further, ice melt will continue.

So yesterday BBD was a dupe, eating up the no pause propaganda. Today he is explaining away the pause with sea inertia propaganda.

Not propaganda. Published science. Variability in the rate at which energy accumulates in the ocean modulates the rate of surface warming in the short term. There are other factors as well, but this is probably a significant contributor to the slowdown in the rate of surface warming from 2004 - 2014. In the long term - multidecadal to centennial - the forced trend dominates.

agf:

“where the heck is global warming,” proving the pause that both have been denying

Actually, if it was somewhere then it wasn't paused. To be paused it can't be anywhere at all.

As I said before from the brain-dead moron’s <a href="http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/Fy… citation:

“The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown.”

Poor recent warming slowdown, dead as a doornail like agf's brain.

agf:

“where the heck is global warming,” proving the pause that both have been denying

Actually, if it was somewhere then it wasn’t paused. To be paused it can’t be anywhere at all.

As I said before from the brain-dead moron’s favourite citation:

“The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown.”

Poor recent warming slowdown, dead as a doornail like agf’s brain.

By convention the "pause" was defined as a zero trend in global surface T, i.e., bottom atmosphere, not potential energy content of hydrosphere, cryosphere, or lithosphere. The propagandists preferred the word "hiatus" to describe a "slowdown" in the T trend, as they loathed the counter-propaganda value of the word "pause." An honest approach to the semantics would not accept a change of definition midstream. There is a big difference between surface T and ocean T; e.g., "your children won't know what snow is," is a prediction that takes no account of possible ocean uptake of energy.

Me:
"6) When oceans are heating ice is not melting and the sea is not rising: steric SLR requires far more energy than eustatic rise."
You:
"Um? The ocean is already warm enough to melt ice. As forcing increases and the ocean warms further, ice melt will continue."

According to Balmaseda, Trenberth, Kallen, 2013, "Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed about 90% of the total heat added to the climate system [Bindoff et al., 2007], while the rest goes to melting sea and land ice, and warming the land surface and atmosphere." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

Accordingly I find it necessary to explain to you that if the figure were say, 70% rather than 90%, that would mean more ice would be melting and eustatic SLR would triple.

As for your mechanism for ocean warming, it's better than nothing, but I would point out:
1) An opposite effect was described in 2006: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/walker.shtml
2) It is rather counter intuitive. Get out of the shower and stand in front of a fan and you will soon be shivering. Hurricanes lower ocean T by about 10C to depths of tens of meters. It would be a good trick for the trade winds to sink warm water before cooling it, though as always, observation trumps theory.
3) But the trade winds strengthened before the pause.
4) Few seemed to have jumped on the band wagon. I might point out where Prof. Barry Bickmore confidently asserts what others in this thread have insisted:
By: Barry Bickmore on January 14, 2016
at 5:13 pm
"It’s been known for quite a while that the warming “pause” or “speed bump” or whatever you want to call it is simply a function of a shift toward more La Niña years, lately."
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/ted-cruz-pwned-by-satellite-…
5) It flies in the face of recent trend adjustments adopted by NASA, NOAA, and RSS. These adjustments not only bust the pause, but much of the "slowdown" as well, to the consternation of Fyfe, Mann, et al.
6) It remains one of some 60 explanations for the pause, all of which are likewise rendered superfluous to a large extent by Karl et al.

But thanks for pointing it out. --AGF

Accordingly I find it necessary to explain to you that if the figure were say, 70% rather than 90%, that would mean more ice would be melting and eustatic SLR would triple.

This is yet more diversionary waffling. The variability in ocean heat uptake is tiny - fractions of a percent.

1) An opposite effect was described in 2006: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/walker.shtml

In which you confuse a long-term decrease in the Walker Circulation of ~3.5% since 1800 with decadal variability as described in England et al. Stop trying to be a smarty-pants. It fools nobody.

“It’s been known for quite a while that the warming “pause” or “speed bump” or whatever you want to call it is simply a function of a shift toward more La Niña years, lately.”

As I understand it: IPO negative -> ENSO - LN predominant -> slowdown in the rate of surface warming.

5) It flies in the face of recent trend adjustments adopted by NASA, NOAA, and RSS. These adjustments not only bust the pause, but much of the “slowdown” as well, to the consternation of Fyfe, Mann, et al.

Only contrarians made a really big deal out of the very slight slowdown in the rate of surface warming. For example, only contrarians argued that it was evidence that climate sensitivity had been grossly overestimated by alarmist scientists.

Your commentary is becoming increasingly incoherent and contradictory.

Your commentary is becoming increasingly incoherent and contradictory.

Symptom of cognitive dissonance.

0310.22May2016GMT

BBD: " The variability in ocean heat uptake is tiny – fractions of a percent."
Total BS: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/figures/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/#…

BBD: "Only contrarians made a really big deal out of the very slight slowdown in the rate of surface warming. For example, only contrarians argued that it was evidence that climate sensitivity had been grossly overestimated by alarmist scientists."

Cf. Balmaseda et al: "The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

The high variability in ocean heat uptake which BBD knows nothing about or chooses to deny, and which was not taken very seriously before the pause or measured more than sparsely before ARGO, is precisely what throws the very definition of TCS into a quandary. But BBD can get away with his blather as long as his audience doesn't know the difference between a straight and a wavy line, or between a joule and a watt.
--AGF

Still no answers to my earlier questions (#412, 422) AGF?

***
Fill in the blanks if you can! :

1) You,AGF, are saying the scientific consensus there like the one on Global Overheating is wrong because _____???

2) And that we should believe you over all those real climate scientists because ____???

&

3. Volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating. What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims?

Correction : I'm going to simplify and make that first question just :

11) You, AGF, are saying the scientific consensus on Global Overheating is wrong because _____???

Who knows, just maybe that'll help get a simple, direct answer?

Ocean heat *content* is rising because of increasing GHG forcing. That's not the same as variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake. The last major example of that was the response to Pinatubo.

Transient climate sensitivity is formally defined as the temperature at the time of CO2 doubling (reaching 560ppm). Short-term variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake will have no significant effect on TCR and non at all on ECS.

And enough of the misleadingly selective quotation.

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

Since you are easily confused, let me remind you that the 30% figure does not refer to total ocean heat uptake but rather to the change in vertical ocean heat distribution.

or between a joule and a watt.

Since you persist in being an arsehole about this, let's return to your own never-acknowledged error. You repeatedly claimed that the graph showed insolation increase of 100W/m^2 during the last deglaciation. It did not. It showed 60W/m^2. Your incorrect claim is inflated by 67%.

And you have not acknowledged this massive error despite my pointing it out to you. I, on the other hand, spotted my own mistake immediately and posted a follow-on comment acknowledging it.

If I were you, I would let the matter drop, or we are going to have to keep revisiting your dishonesty and dual standards when it comes to errors. There are a considerable number more we can revisit. I listed them in a previous comment.

1450GMT

BBD, you're just full of lying BS. Here's what I said:
=======================================
A G Foster

May 13, 2016
1930GMT
BBD, if you look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:Vostok_42…
you’ll see that 60ppm CO2 correspond to 10C, which is one hell of a forcing to blame on CO2. The most that has been attributed to CO2 and the ice ages is a little amplification. If you look lower on the chart you’ll see that insolation varies over 100W at 65N in June, two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 forcing, and which is clearly what triggers the show.
===================================
You are the clown who mistook that to refer specifically to the LGM and accused me of getting it wrong ever after. And I repeat, orbital forcing is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 where it counts, at the edge of the ice. And that would still be true at the LGM: 70W extra (over the minimum), two orders of magnitude greater forcing.

So what do you do when I try to teach you the basics? You get the details wrong, accuse me of getting them wrong, and throw out endless BS. Lastly you say:
"The variability in ocean heat uptake is tiny – fractions of a percent.”
Which of course would yield a straight line graph of ocean heat uptake. And you attempt to justify yourself with this:

"Ocean heat *content* is rising because of increasing GHG forcing. That’s not the same as variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake."

And you accuse me of confusion? If you hadn't been such a consistent asshole I'd be happy to forget your J/W confusion, but you have to admit that tipped your hand--you haven't looked at very many ice core records, if any. But just as you missed the big point about insolation trumping CO2 forcing, so you miss the big picture problem of ocean heat uptake taking the world of climate doom by surprise. The heat is going into the ocean, average maybe roughly 90%, ice not melting (you were wrong there too), heat going into insignificant steric SLR, problem delayed a century or more, plenty of time to raise the dykes.

The impending doom is BS and it's time you admitted it.
--AGF

Here we go again.

you’ll see that 60ppm CO2 correspond to 10C, which is one hell of a forcing to blame on CO2.

I didn't say that deglaciation was mainly forced by CO2. You inserted a strawman and have now revisited it.

And I repeat, orbital forcing is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 where it counts, at the edge of the ice.

And I repeat that CO2 is a positive feedback to orbitally-forced regional and seasonal insolation change. And I repeat that full deglaciation requires the inclusion of RF from CO2 - albedo alone is not sufficient. This was all detailed above.

And you accuse me of confusion?

I'm trying to be charitable.

But just as you missed the big point about insolation trumping CO2 forcing,

That is confused.

so you miss the big picture problem of ocean heat uptake taking the world of climate doom by surprise.

The trendless and transient variability in ocean heat uptake is being overplayed by contrarians. To wit:"[it] throws the very definition of TCS into a quandary". Rubbish. Trendless natural variablity cancels out on multidecadal timescales leaving the forced trend dominant. This is why it is incorrect to insist that a short term slowdown in the rate of surface warming has any significant implications for TCR, let alone ECS.

0210.23May2016GMT
Abstracts only here, but tell me if this jives with England et al: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n6/full/ngeo2438.html?WT.ec_id=NG…
It helps to have water that's actually warming.
--AGF

Yes, that is consistent with England et al.

It helps to have water that’s actually warming.

Even the abstract is explicit that the water is warming, AGF:

We find that the enhanced heat uptake by the Pacific Ocean has been compensated by an increased heat transport from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, carried by the Indonesian throughflow. As a result, Indian Ocean heat content has increased abruptly, which accounts for more than 70% of the global ocean heat gain in the upper 700 m during the past decade.

the “pause”

By the moron's favorite citation, there was no "pause":

Recent claims .. were made in the context of an examiniation of whether warming has ceased, stopped or paused. We do not believe that warming has ceased, but we consider the slowdown

“pause” was defined as a zero trend in global surface T

But the data does not say there was zero trend in global surface T from 1998 to 2012 inclusive. No zero trend, ergo, no pause.

But agf can argue semantics all he likes. It won't change the fact that the recently deceased slowdown, pause, whatever you want to call it is dead like his brain.

0620GMT
Well they agree that it starts with tropical east Pacific warming, but Lee et al claim the Pacific is cooling in its entirety--I guess they put more stock in ARGOS than in the pinniped studies. Accordingly they differ in where the heat is going, England et al claiming the warm water is sinking in the Pacific, Lee et al claiming it's flowing into the Indian Ocean. Explanations 61 A and B for the pause--evidently based on a paucity of observation. They can't both be completely right.
--AGF

England et al. shows that strengthened Walker circulation is pushing warm waters west. Lee et al. shows how this process engages the THC which circulates the warm waters into the Indian ocean. The two studies are compatible.

Neither they, nor the non-pause have any significant impact on TCR or ECS.

AGF

Getting very tired of your attempts to insinuate that there is something wrong with the science. There really isn't. The problem is with you, and your indefensible position, adequately summarised in your own words:

The impending doom is BS and it’s time you admitted it.

You need an unphysically low TCR / ECS for that, and physics isn't going to give it to you. Time you admitted it.

2145GMT
BBD: "Getting very tired of your attempts to insinuate that there is something wrong with the science. There really isn’t."

BBD is transparently no scientist. Climate science is probably the most complex physical science we have. The models are inadequate to the science and the computers are inadequate to the models. And if it ain't quantified it ain't science. And believe me, it ain't quantified.

Here's the state of the art: https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/lewiscurry_ar5-energy-budg…
Here's a history of the art:
http://euanmearns.com/zeroing-in-on-the-true-value-of-climate-sensitivi…
The estimates are steadily dropping.

Nothing wrong with the science, says he. BBD could not even define the science. --AGF

I happen to have been an avid student of Geology 1971- 76, at the University of Arizona, even though I was not a Geology major. I believe I took every undergraduate course they offered in Geology. We were mostly talking about Global Warming using data collected since temperatures were recorded in the 19th Century. An Ice age was only discussed as an outside chance...a slim chance, because it had been calculated from historical data like ice cores that we were about halfway through the arc of the last event from colder to warmer. No one seriously believed we could have another global Ice Age.
Some computers models we used for Global Warming way back then have proved remarkably accurate in the short term; the Oglala aquifer being pumped dry would change the climate of the plains, for one. The rapid rise in temperatures relative to geologic time is already in the process of building a feedback loop that is changing life as we know it while I type this comment.
Global Warming deniers just amaze me. The data is readily available in layman's terms. I recently was looking for records of volcanic activity that I could juxtapose to European climate history and found a treasure trove of information in a few searches; records of famines, caused by excessive snow, burning heat and torrential rains, and the accompanying diseases...I have not finished attempting to correlate those weather events to volcanic eruptions, but it is promising: a two year Winter!
You folks who deny a warming planet might read a bit more history related to weather events. We are not immune.

But L&C is not the state of the art. It is a methodologically compromised under-estimate.

Lewis cannot get his results to fit palaeoclimate behaviour, which rather suggests that there are serious problems. Whenever I have asked him about this, he has not been able to respond.

Contrary to contrarians, estimates of ECS remain stuck firmly around 3C per doubling.

Mearns writes:

My guess is that they will eventually settle somewhere below 1.5C – maybe even as low as 1C, which is generally agreed to be the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 in the absence of feedbacks.

Which means we can discount everything else he says because he's denying the GHE - which *already* includes a substantial RF term from WV. Anybody who thinks that a warmer troposphere and increase SSTs *won't* result in more WV doesn't have a clue and can safely be ignored.

Why do you listen to these amateurs instead of actual scientists. Speaking of amateurs, Lewis is one - he's a retired banker, not a scientist. He has no career professional expertise whatsoever.

BBD is transparently no scientist.

And for the second time, I have never claimed to be one. You are transparently not a scientist either, so why are you wittering about this irrelevance again?

The fact is, you are stuck. You cannot defend your position because it is confounded by multiple lines of scientific evidence and you know it, hence all the 'BBD is this' and 'BBD is that' crap. It just underlines how hopeless your position is.

I'd advise you to stick to the science, but you haven't actually got any that supports your position, so...

maybe even as low as 1C

Obviously ludicrous because we are already at 1C with barely more than half CO2 doubling. Other forcings don't come anywhere near making up the difference.

Why do you listen to these amateurs instead of actual scientists.

Because scientists will not co-operate and tell him only what he wants to hear. Reality be damned for its insolence, he'll just find someone --anyone-- who will say things that he finds reassuringly self-serving.

And then use it to relentlessly beat everyone else over the head who has the temerity to point out his falsehoods and faulty "reasoning".

Chris O'Neill

Obviously ludicrous because we are already at 1C with barely more than half CO2 doubling.

Absolutely. And this also drives a truck through Lewis & Curry, which gives a best estimate (median) TCR (formally defined as temperature response at the point of doubling) of 1.33C. 'State of the art' is about the last thing we can say about L&C.

2015GMT
The debate settles around two basic questions: how much trouble are we in (if any), and what should we do about it (if anything)? On the solution side of the problem BBD has thrown in his hat with Hansen et al (letter to COP21), and whether he is aware or no, he is now a "denier" according to Naomi Oreskes (whom he has defended here against charges of Marxism). Whether or not Oreskes is a card carrying commie (like so many of her colleagues), she is a career prevaricator, slandering right and left both the living and the dead, but especially the dead. She leaves it to Neirenberg's heirs to defend the scientist's good name from her wild accusations: http://www.nicolasnierenberg.com/

BBD doesn't give a damn that Oreskes serves as minister of propaganda or that he's a denier by her terms. Is BBD an oblivious idiot or a fellow propagandist? At least he's making a little sense with the nuclear option.

Mearns and Lewis &Curry mostly report the IPCC history of revision, and a Russian model that actually works. Input a high sensitivity estimate and your model will run hot, as 97% of them do.

But there's nothing wrong with the science. --AGF

@511. AGF ;

BBD is transparently no scientist. .. (snip) ..
The models are inadequate to the science and the computers are inadequate to the models. And if it ain’t quantified it ain’t science. And believe me, it ain’t quantified. ... (snip).. Nothing wrong with the science, says he. BBD could not even define the science. –AGF

Why the hell would any of us believe you here or accept anything you say when almost everything you have spewed out has turned out to be wrong, misleading, cherry-picked or actually saying the opposite of what you claim it does?

I don't see anything to remotely suggest you area scientist or could find the scientific method with a map, directions and a teleporter. I'd asked you about why we should believe you and you haven't answered that or my other simple questions :

1) You, AGF, are saying the scientific consensus on Global Overheating is wrong because _____??? (Fill in the blank.)

2) And that we should believe you over all those real climate scientists because ____??? (Fill in the blank.)

&

3. Volcanic activity levels and solar irradiance have been studied, observed and calculated and found NOT to be causative factors in the current observed planetary heating. What part of that do you fail to understand or reject on what factual basis and what evidence to have to support your claims?

I think Brainstorms #516 here is spot on.

1350GMT
StevoR, I don't usually respond to you because you've never had an intelligent thought in your life, which of course means you are not capable of framing a meaningful question. What the hell is "the scientific consensus on Global Overheating"?
--AGF

AGF #518 = yet more evasive verbiage :-)

L&C is an obvious underestimate, AGF. Even non-scientists like you and I can see that - assuming that we are objective and actually understand the topic, of course.

AGF:

What the hell is “the scientific consensus on Global Overheating”?

That you have to ask is a stunning indication that your view of the subject (AGW) is poorly informed, naive, and ridiculously lopsided (as if we didn't already know).

StevoR, I don’t usually respond to you because you’ve never had an intelligent thought in your life, which of course means you are not capable of framing a meaningful question.

Even your insults are boring.

Input a high sensitivity estimate and your model will run hot, as 97% of them do.

Compared to what, AGF? Observations?

We've already been through this. A single instance of the real Earth climate cannot be compared to the multi-model mean. It's misleading.

The actual Earth climate is heavily influenced over the short term by the predominant ENSO state (itself a reflection of the IPO phase), by volcanism and by variability in solar output. All are transient and do not affect the multi-*model* mean. So divergence on the scale of 1 - 2 decades is to be expected. Sometimes the MMM will correspond quite well to observations. Sometimes it will exceed them. Sometimes it will be lower than observed temperatures. Over the short term, the comparison is uninformative.

The best you can do is update the CMIP5 forcings used for AR5 and compare the results with observations. And when CMIP5 forcing estimates used for AR5 are updated to bring them into line with real-world forcing history, then modelled global average temperature comes into much closer agreement with observations (Schmidt et al. 2014). This would suggest that model physics and so emergent behaviours - like model sensitivity - are reasonably accurate.

So the oft-repeated claim that the models are 'running hot' is yet another contrarian confusion, not actual evidence that climate sensitivity is lower than expected.

And once again, let's remind ourselves that short-term variability in temperature has no significant impact on TCR and none on ECS. That's another contrarian confusion that tends to get muddled in with the previous one.

Input a high sensitivity estimate and your model will run hot, as 97% of them do.

I suppose I should have also said that you don't appear to understand how AOGCMs actually work. Sensitivity is not parameterised. It is not an input value. It is an emergent property of the model physics. The model exhibits a sensitivity - it is not given one.

Unless this is clear you will not grasp what I wrote above, eg.:

This would suggest that model physics and so emergent behaviours – like model sensitivity – are reasonably accurate.

There's already far too much confusion around as it is.

@520. A G Foster : And you still haven't answered the questions!

Insulting me with your own projection is not an answer.

Asking a disingenous question that I simply don't believe you don't already know the answer to - and if you genuinely didn't know reveals you to be completely ignorant on this issue - is not an answer either.

For the record since you asked :

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)

Source : http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

One of many statements listed along with the facts on the NASA website.

Oh & if you think things might have changed since - they haven't. The overwhelming scientific evidence has only gotten ever stronger and more convincing :

In a paper published in Environmental Research Letters on April 13 (2016 - ed), I collaborated with the authors of seven of the leading consensus studies to perform a meta-study of meta-studies synthesising the research into scientific consensus on climate change. (A meta-study combines the findings from multiple studies.) Among climate scientists, the estimates of consensus varied from 90 to 100 percent, with a number of studies converging on 97 percent, the very figure derided by Cruz, Santorum, and others opposed to action on global warming.

A key finding from our meta-study was that scientific agreement was highest among scientists with the most expertise in climate science.

Source : http://thebulletin.org/yes-there-really-scientific-consensus-climate-ch…

Of course, you could have just googled this :

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie…

(Or used Wikipedia, their summary of this is pretty good too.)

But clearly that basic level of intelligence is beyond you.

So the climatological consensus is that Global Overheating is real, we're causing it and its a serious problem that will have massive negative impacts on our lives into the future.

Attempts to deny this reality have long been exposed as a Point Refuted Already Thousand Times by those with vested economic and ideological interests or those who have been duped by those.

So, now you know - not that you didn't already - could you just answer the flippin' questions?

BBD: "The model exhibits a sensitivity – it is not given one."

You're right there. I should have said, overestimate the feedbacks and your model will run hot, as 97% of them do.

BBD: "So divergence on the scale of 1 – 2 decades is to be expected."

Quite possibly. But it's impressive how a dogma can bloom. Back in 1996 the anthropogenic signal was hypothetical: "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" ( http://www.di2.nu/foia/0845217169.txt ), and there has been little warming since, yet the signal grew more incontrovertible even while it got weaker. Just goes to show the fanatics shouldn't make predictions like, in 20 years your kids won't know what snow is. Too much natural variability.

The CRU pulled off a miracle, creating the anthro signal ex nihilo with the help of a magic hockey stick and their considerable PR skills. Somehow I remain unconvinced.
--AGF

and your model will run hot, as 97% of them do.

I've just explained why this is not an accurate statement.

The CRU pulled off a miracle, creating the anthro signal ex nihilo with the help of a magic hockey stick

First, this is conspiracy theory nonsense and just wrong - CRU had nothing to to with the hockey stick. Get your tinfoil hat on straight. Second, the C20th warming is visible in a large range of metrics, none of which have anything to do with CRU or MBH99/ 99. More confused and diversionary waffle.

* * *

I've noticed that you just move from one contrarian muddle to the next as each is debunked. You might think this is an argument, but it isn't.

there has been little warming since

In denial of reality.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to/trend/plot/gistem…