By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here.
I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
And there you go again, chek. You can't deal with reality. Or for that matter, with anyone questioning your religious beliefs.
Empirical facts are just that, empirical facts. Regardless who's telling them. But to understand such basic facts is of course too much for a true believer.
Yes, "skeptic", I wish for a warmer world, statistically significant or not. If you dare to look outside your box, back in time you might notice that mankind and the rest of the world has allways thrived when the world has been warmer and the opposite when it has been colder. But perhaps that's too much for you?
And no, I didn't admit to anything. You brought up 1998, not I. And still, out of all the anthropogenic CO2 we have released into the atmpsphere from 1750, a third has ben released the last 16 years. And yet, during this 16 year period, we have no warming what so ever. One must be a really, really hard core believer in the cAGW church to not see the non existing cause-and-effect between CO2 and AGW.
Deal with it!
Skeptic
On the contrary, the problems your pet-scare has has nothing to do with exactly what starting date you chose for the hiatus ...
Nor does it depend on if the calculated trend of a chosen period is zero, slightly positive or negative ...
By the way, not only was my statement about a 15 year period rather than a 16 year period, it concerned no statistically significant warming rather than no warming. So you've really outdone yourself braindead z, two lies in a single post.
But let's see an arctic animation showing the period "dec. 1991 och sep. 2008" - presumably trhrown on the table as a tribute to PantieZ googling skills, together with the two of SG's'paragragh length blogposts.
The first reassures us that Greenland got very, very cold this winter (tough not record-breakingly so). Nothing much there, but in the comments one of Steve's more intellectual commenters warns us that the Bank for International Settlements is the long-feared Weld Gummint - a fact readily verrifiable via Google, according to the commenter.
The second (after carefully ignoring the increse in Antarctic seas ice is helpfully swollen by collapsed ice shelves ends in a classic (among many) of Goddard projection: "Another term for “climate expert” is “mentally ill hater of the human race“.
And that's the last time I check any references from you PantieZ. You're lazier than a sloth with low blood sugar.
chek
The ones who are the haters are easily identified by their hateful language ....
“Another term for “climate expert” is “mentally ill hater of the human race“.- Steven Goddard
"Empirical facts are just that, empirical facts. Regardless who’s telling them". - PantieZ
"The ones who are the haters are easily identified by their hateful language".- Jonarse
No further comment from me required.
And did you watch the winter sea ice extent the different years? Well, no significant difference there. So what might that tell you? I help you out. Regardless of how much of the ice melts in the summertime, it all grows back in the winter. But that doesn't play well with your church, so better not mention it. One type of cAGW cherrypicking.
As for Goddard, as with McKitrick and McIntyre before, they most certanely are miles abowe you regarding climate and science. There is a difference between on one hand, to look at actual empirical, unaltered evidence and from them try to draw conclusions, and on the other hand, make computer games, let it play, and when the result don't fit the agenda, massage the input data untill you get the result that fits the cause.
There hasn't been any warming for 16 years. Deal with it!
"On the contrary, the problems your pet-scare has has nothing to do with exactly what starting date you chose for the hiatus"
The haitus has nothing to do with AGW.
Unlike you deniers, we believe the Sun has a role to play in the climate. From peak to trough on average our sun will change the average temperatures 0.2C on a cycle from 7-16 years.
You however believe that unless everything is down to one simple mechanism, then nothing affects that product.
Simple minds like yours cannot handle anything more complex.
"And did you watch the winter sea ice extent the different years?"
How much sun do you get in winter at the pole?
"No further comment from me required."
Exactly. For one your'e spot on.
"And you post a SkSc graph drawing exactly that long straight upward sloping line I already mentioned before is the preferred warmist diversion. "
You see only the tiny bit that can fit inside that miniscule brain of yours, don't you.
Go look at the graph.
Again.
Notice that there are lots of short periods where you can draw a "trend" that is negative or pretty flat.
Yet each time someone (like you, you moron) would have claimed there "it's cooling now, AGW is over!!!" would have been dead wrong.
But you don't have the brainpower to learn, so you never learn do you.
"Wow … even if I wrote my hypothesis about what is discussed many times again"
You'd have to write it down at least once before you can claim to do it "again".
PantieZ, firstly your animation ends Dec 2008, and secondly removing trend lines does not remove the warming. Hint: the superimposed line is only a visual aid, not the data themselves.
That's a big strawman, wow.
So far it's always been the evil CO2 among you AGW mongers. Scientist pointing out that the sun could have something to do with the climate has regularely been ridiculed by you. And now you are telling us that the sun suddenly has a role in this? Hillarious.
When did I do this? You're suffering from rhetoric diarrhea.
Only a wilfully ignorant fool would think the 16-year trend confidence interval (just) encompassing zero means much. Just means that that data can only tell us that the underlying (ex-noise) trend could be somewhere between just below zero and just over double the measured trend. Big deal.
Just because there is noise and signal doesn't mean there is no signal.
So you can see the future???
Or just because there is noise doesn’t mean there is no signal.
"So far it’s always been the evil CO2 among you AGW mongers."
Nope.
Though that's want you've wanted to believe.
"Scientist pointing out that the sun could have something to do with the climate has regularely been ridiculed by you. "
No, I've ripped the pish out of idiots pretending to be scientists who've made ridiculous assertions that CO2 has no effect, it's all explained by the Sun.
SKeptic, as I said, you don't understand the problem, you don't undertand what it is, why it is, and that it growing (and has been)
You don't even know what to compare the data with ...
It's goalposts and strawmen being knocked around all over ... aimlessly hoping it says something also in real life
"And now you are telling us that the sun suddenly has a role in this?"
It's always had a role.
You;'ve been to obsessed about Mann and CO2 to actually read the IPCC report.
Go and read it.
Chapter 2.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html
"Or just because there is noise doesn’t mean there is no signal."
Nor does it mean there is.
"SKeptic, as I said, you don’t understand the problem,"
The problem is you're a fuckwit and noisy with it.
It's impossible to understand why you do it, though.
The insane are not easily understood except in terms of their insanity.
The problem is you're just too dumb to think.
Nice try, wow. You thing anybody byes it?
"Nor does it mean there is."
BZZZZT.
You really have a problem with english, don't you.
Here is what you should have been reading:
"just because there is noise doesn’t mean there is no signal.”
"You thing anybody byes it?"
Well, you're alread bought and paid for.
Do you know what you're talking about? The calculated trends for 16 years are all positive.
Wow ... you seem to be trying and for more than a year have tryied to blame all the poblems you have understanding essentially everything being discussed on agents outside yourself.Why do you think that is?
Go back and look at the SkSc-graph again, and do some thinking.
Yes Skeptic, I know what I'm talkning about. As I said, your problem does not depend on the things you a counterargument ...
I have already hinted what you should be looking for.
Some people think that rhetoric diarrhea is engaging with the issue.
"Why do you think that is?"
Because you're making it up (as usual).
You would say that, wouldn't you?
"Go back and look at the SkSc-graph again, and do some thinking."
I'd say "you first", but you're incapable of it.
"Yes Skeptic, I know what I’m talkning about"
Nope, you don't.
You don't even know how to spell it.
"I have already hinted what you should be looking for."
Already been shown to you.
"Some people think that rhetoric diarrhea is engaging with the issue."
By "some people" you mean "deniers".
Is that supposed to be a clue? What's it supposed to mean?
Fellas, the heat is on:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/uah-v5-5-global-temperature-update-…
It even worse than we thought! ;-)
Hey, Olap, you still haven’t answered how you would determine a trend!
"What’s it supposed to mean?"
It means, despite all the evidence given to him, Joan still doesn't understand what is going on.
Pfft.
UAH?
It;s been wrong so many times and had to have its data recalculated so often, I'm suprised anyone bothers to pay Roy his salary.
Maybe that's why he moonlights as a shill for the fossil fuel industry...
SKeptic
You seem at least to be aware of that there is a hiatus (but are wiggling with the details). The hint is to deal with it, not bicker about hte details. Now why would a prolongued hiatus be a problem for a scare-hypthesis favoured by many here?
Can you come up with any reason? Can you come up with some quantitiative evaluation of it?
Or is this what you have produced here really at your top performance level?
BtW have you noted the endless diarrhea spouted by some of your fellow .. ehrm ... trend huggers?
"You seem at least to be aware of that there is a hiatus"
You seem to be oddly fascinated by an event that has happened many times in the past as it is a consequence of short term cycles added on to a trend.
Have you never seen any actual data before so that this reality confuses you?
"Now why would a prolongued hiatus be a problem for a scare-hypthesis favoured by many here? "
If you stopped calling it a scare hypothesis maybe you'd get further.
And if such a thing happens, it isn't a problem for AGW.
Since it isn't a problem, there's no need to come up with a reason for it to be a problem.
And now, The Great Jonarse will demonstrate No Global Warming.
Ladies and Gennelmen, with my invention of the 'hiatius' note there is no more AGW! Yes, it's true! No AGW since yesterday lunchtime! No AGW since yesterday teatime! No AGW since breakfast time today! I therefore have proved that with all these multitude of hiatiuses, AGW is in deep shit and scientists and mathematicians should form an orderly queue and bow down before me where their closet communism may be forgiven.
For this is what I have shown, and what you should believe. I have said it once and I won't be saying it again, even though the specific text may hide from your doubting eyes.
(Eight further paragraphs and exhortations extolling les premiere crackpot wankery du jour (pardon my French) follow but you get the gist.
So now it's just wiggling? Whatever happened to "you don’t understand the problem, you don’t undertand what it is, why it is, and that it growing"?
Spare us the rhetoric and please give us a mathematical meaning of
"the temperature hiatius for now some 16 years"
Hell, since the temperature hasn' t been static for 16 years, it's plain old wrong.
"If you stopped calling it a scare hypothesis maybe you’d get further."
If you stopped calling it a CO2 scare hypothesis maybe you’d get further.
Better?
"Hell, since the temperature hasn’ t been static for 16 years, it’s plain old wrong."
Man, you're good. I'm impressed. Losing it, are you? Where have anybody ever claimed earth's temperature to being static?
Here's something for you true believers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiWyzsWZNw4
“…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”
Oops!
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.pdf
" Abstract.
We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW since during the observation period (1880–2007) global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences whereas greenhouse gases and aerosol forcings are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature."
A mouthful for the Cli-Fi society.
"If you stopped calling it a CO2 scare hypothesis maybe you’d get further."
I agree. Stop calling it a CO2 scare hypothesis.
"Where have anybody ever claimed earth’s temperature to being static?"
When they say this: “the temperature hiatius for now some 16 years”
Or don't you know what haitus means?
"This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. "
This isn't implied by the earlier statements.
The earlier statements show that the correlation between temperature and anthropogenic sources correlate better than solar does.
"On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”
Since they only look at past data they can ALWAYS pretend (and note it IS "pretend") that it is not going to happen in the future.
All their statement REALLY says is that Anthropogenic sources fit better as the causation of past temperature rise.
Since they aren't doing any physics, extrapolating into the future is solely curve-fitting.
You know, like Roy does and then drops when his curve that shows "cooling any day now" starts looking stupid even to him.
"Or don’t you know what haitus means?"
Yes, I do. Do you?
And then, as usual, you start to make things up. Your'e just full of it. How does it feel when reallity bites your ass? Your church is diminishing to only a small sect right in front of you. And still you refuse to look reallity in the eye. Pathetic.
"Yes, I do."
Then why did you ask where anyone had said that temperatures had been static for 16 years?
"Do you?"
Indeed.
But you do not, merely claim you know when it is obvious you do not.
"Your church is diminishing to only a small sect right in front of you. "
Yeah, the increase in people accepting AGW and wanting something to do about it getting up to 62% is "diminishing".
Tell me,you know you're lying rather than don't know what "diminishing" means.
If you're claming that "hiatus" is the same as "static" you really have a severe problem wity your reading comprehension. Funny that you are trying to lecture me when you obviously hasn't got a clue your self. Hillarious.
Nice illustration of the fallacy of "cooling" by greenman:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/giss79.jpg?w=500&h=322&h=323
"If you’re claming that “hiatus” is the same as “static""
If that isn't what Joan is saying then why does he think that an interruption of continued warming is a PROBLEM?
"...up to 62%"
Did you use the same method for that number as for the "98% of the worlds scientists"? The alleged concensus which turned out to be 75 scientists out of 79? Haha...
And by "the same method" you mean "the correct method"?
Yes.
75/79!=.98
Seems you can't do maths either.
And have you EVER corroborated ANY claim of yours with evidence?
So far "no".
Oh man, wow is linking to tamino like it's some kind of authority on climate science. Hillarious. What an own goal!
" like it’s some kind of authority on climate science. "
No, like it is an authority on statistics.
Which it is.
But your brain is far too small to contain more than one meme at a time, isn't it, panties.
panties is confused about what "own goal" means too.
"Seems you can’t do maths either."
Actual, the culprits who conducted the survey did the round off all by them selves. Didn't you know? Some small cheating here, some small cheating there. I guess they felt the number 98 was prettier than 95. All for the good cause.
"No, like it is an authority on statistics."
Oh, bugger. My fault. Let me rephrase:
Oh man, wow is linking to tamino like it’s some kind of authority on statistics. Hillarious. What an own goal!
"the culprits who conducted the survey did the round off all by them selves"
Except that isn't even the case. Even rounded off 75/79 still goesn't get you 98%.
Still failing with the maths, panties.
" linking to tamino like it’s some kind of authority on statistics."
OK, now it's just plain wrong.
This is still an improvement for you, more's the pity.
How bad do you feel when merely being wrong is an improvement for you, panties?
"But your brain is far too small to contain more than one meme at a time, isn’t it, panties."
So, there it is. Out of arguments again?
No, just observing.
Of course you could just be a psychopathic liar.
I'm only going on observed qualities here.
And I note that you still fail at thinking. Try it some day. Get an adult to help.
So to sum up, panties
a) thinks that 75/79 is approximately 98%
b) thinks that 98% is a rounding from 95%
c) thinks that analysing a set of data for statistical properties is climate science.
d) has made ludicrous claims (see above) with no back up by any facts.
"How bad do you feel when merely being wrong is an improvement for you, panties?"
Some really valig arguments you have. Hillarious!
"Even rounded off 75/79 still goesn’t get you 98%." And again you fail the comprehension test. What in the sentence "the culprits who conducted the survey did the round off all by them selves" don't you understand?
You really have some issues going around in your head. I suggest you get them sorted out.
"Some really valig arguments you have."
Seems you don't know what argument means either.
"What in the sentence “the culprits who conducted the survey did the round off all by them selves” don’t you understand?"
What part of "you claim 75/79 is 98%" don't you understand?
All we have is you saying this. Absolutely nothing else. Just you.
What part of "you claim 98% is a rounding of 95%" don't you understand, panties?
a) The survey boiled down to 79 "acceptable" scientists. Of these 75 truly believed in AGW.
b) The survey team banged on the big drum and clamed that 98% sf the worlds scientists believed in AGW. Now, who did you think did the round off?
c) If you don't believe it to be "climate science", why do you then link to it?
d) It should start with "I have made...". Then it would be right.
So, back to the crib for a nap.
The world hasn't warmed the last 16 years. Deal with it!
You know, repeating your non-arguments don't make them true.
Till next time.
come on, panties, pull yourself up.
Apparently, unable to accept your lies are pretty damn obvious, you run away.
What part of "you claim 75/79 is 98%" don't you understand?
That isn't too hard a question for you, is it?
"a) The survey boiled down to 79 “acceptable” scientists. Of these 75 truly believed in AGW. "
The survey? You've already said there's been more than one.
" Now, who did you think did the round off?"
You claimed the rounding off of 95% was 98%.
YOU.
"c) If you don’t believe it to be “climate science”, why do you then link to it? "
See this is why I assert your brain is too small to hold more than one meme at a time.
Even when your idiot mates are doing it.
"d) It should start with “I have made…”. Then it would be right."
Nope, "has made" in a list is completely correct.
Seems even when you're trying your hardest, you still fail at English.
"The world hasn’t warmed the last 16 years."
Yes it has. Deal with it.
Chris O'Neill
I remember your sour-grapes-comments after I read your cherrished Rahmstorf-chapter :-) And how you thereafter were unable to get back to arguing anything factual.
But of course I can repeat this for you.
We've had a hiatus for some 16 years (regardelss of how exactly you want to describe it, or which dataset etc)
The existence of this hiatus is a real problem for the CO2-scare-pet-hypothesis cherished by quite a few. And it will increase rapidly the longer it lasts.
To me, to anyone just slightly familiar with the topic, with the claims of the hypothesis and what it's based on, and understanding of what a hypthesis is ... I'd say that problem is glaringly obvious.
It seems that quite a few here however aren't aware of this. And instead bicker about minor details, or other things like seaa ice or long-term trends etc.
Question: Is it not obvious to you either?
So it's "tag, you're it" for Team Idiot, Joan?
"We’ve had a hiatus for some 16 years"
Define what you mean. Is it the dictionary plain verse or something else.
"The existence of this hiatus is a real problem"
Not if you mean haitus by the plain dictionary definition.
"And it will increase rapidly the longer it lasts."
So you don't mean haitus, then?
"I’d say that problem is glaringly obvious. "
Yup, it's between your two ears, just behind the eyes.
"It seems that quite a few here however aren’t aware of this"
Indeed, you seem resistent to the problem, prefering to ignore it even exists.
" And instead bicker about minor details"
What? You mean you admit your 16 year period is a minor detail because it is irrelvant to climate change? If so, you're improving. Maybe this site has done you some good after all.
chek, having trouble again with sticking to the truth?
"And now, The Great Jonarse will demonstrate No Global Warming"
Or is your comprehension really this bad?
I know, I know, everything else you perform here is equally lousy. I just ask if you even are aware what total gibberish you are spouting?
Just make sure that you don't confuse all the strawmen you bring with some of the other strawheads mingling among them :-)
Chris O'Neill
Wow is a perfect example of what I describe ... He is on 'your side' wich probably will keep you from openly distancing yourself from his idiot-spoutings. But he still draws explicit support from a few of the others. Which I find just amazing.
I mean there are commenters here arguing that they are arguing 'science' some of them with PhDs and even waiving their CVs, and which will side with someone like Wow and even use him as 'support' for their argument just because he shares their belief (in a wuastion they at best vaguely, but mostly not, understand)
"“And now, The Great Jonarse will demonstrate No Global Warming”
Or is your comprehension really this bad? "
Heck, the Great Joan Arse will demonstrate The Overwhelming Power Of NONSEQUITUR!
Really, how the hell did you manage to conclude that from the quote you took to reach it?
And still avoiding defining terms?
An interruption in temperature rise is not a problem.
For anyone or anything.
Doing nothing whilst you have a temporary lull in the problem of AGW IS a problem.
But you're just hoping that you'll not be affected by the problem, aren't you.
Selfish little weasel.
"I mean there are commenters here arguing that they are arguing ‘science’ some of them with PhDs and even waiving their CVs"
That would be you, Joan.
You're ALWAYS arguing about how well qualified you are therefore you understand "it".
"in a wuastion they at best vaguely, but mostly not, understand"
If nobody understands you wuastion [sic], then the problem is not their comprehension skills, it's that you suck at explaining.
As I said, some here are not even familiar what a scientific hypthesis is, and what it may be used for ...
That's on the level of believing that the printed words found in a scientific journal or publication are the actual science ...
What a sad bunch ...
Wow ... I mean 'question' ... but even with that help, I'm pretty sure that the sentence was far to long for you to even extract what I meant.
But please do keep posting ...
Some of the others might once more use you in support for their beliefs .. I am actually hoping and waiting for that
:-)
" some here are not even familiar what a scientific hypthesis is, and what it may be used for "
By some you mean you.
" I’m pretty sure that the sentence was far to long for you to even extract what I meant. "
No, just because you're too thick to think doesn't mean everyone else is "blessed" with the same problem.
And I note that you're still avoiding any answers.
Or, indeed, any explanations.
"I am actually hoping and waiting for that"
Why?
Looks like the only problem this "haitus" brings about is that Joan has a problem with identifying what they mean.
"Why?"
To stupid to figure that out, eh?
I'll ask you again, please give us a mathematical meaning of
The word "hiatius" does not have a specific mathematical meaning AFAIK.
"To stupid to figure that out, eh?"
To thick to think of the answer, eh?
And I can think of any number of possible reasons.
However, Joan or you or one of the other useless idiots will disagree with it and say it's my fault I'm not a mind reader (even if the mind is apparently nonfunctional).
Why do rats leaving a sinking ship come before me. I wonder.
That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect
WRITTEN BY JOHN O’SULLIVAN | 16 JANUARY 2012
NASA Scientist James Hansen Arrested, August 29, 2011
Image via Wikipedia
Red-faced global warming policymakers are now back tracking as independent experts increasingly discredit the cornerstone of climatology: the greenhouse gas effect (GHE).
One such whistleblower is Dr. Pierre R Latour who explains adroitly belowhow his NASA colleague, septuagenarian Dr. James Hansen, concocted a mythical 33°C [91.4°F] atmospheric greenhouse gas global warming phenomenon.
NASA’s global warming guru, Dr. James Hansen, will go down in history as climate science’s Bernie Madoff for his pivotal role in touting the GHE hypothesis. This is no imprudent comparison – just “follow the money” as they say. It was Hansen’s now legendary doomsaying pronouncements to the U.S. Congress in 1981 that spawned a hundred billion dollar, thirty-year government Ponzi scheme (Madoff scammed ‘only’ $50 billion).
None who sat on that congressional committee appear to have been aware that in 1951 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) had already condemned the GHE to the trashcan of failed theories.
When Cooking the Numbers Ain’t Ok
Now retired, former DuPont and NASA Chemical Engineer, Latour is unconstrained in his opinion,” The 33°C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.”
Dr. Latour is one of many experts old enough to remember that in 1981 James Hansen stated the average thermal T (temperature) at Earth’s surface is 15°C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18°C (ok). From that he declared the difference 15° – (-18°) = 33°C (arithmetic ok) to be the famous greenhouse gas effect.
This is not ‘ok’ to more astute analysts critical of Hansen’s number fudging. They say Hansen’s math is very seriously awry because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers.
Latour recounts his altogether more conventional if less alarmist explanation for what is actually happening with our climate. Apologies to those of you not of a scientific or engineer disposition but hereon in is where we need to get somewhat technical.
The professional engineer registered in Texas and California and from Houston clarifies, “Thermal T is a point property of matter, a scalar measure of its kinetic energy of atomic and molecular motion. It’s what thermometers measure and it decreases with altitude. The rate of thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection between hot Th and cold Tc is proportional to (Th – Tc).”
Dr. Latour then explains that radiation t is a point property of massless radiation, EMR, a directional vector measure of its energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is measured by pyrometers and spectrometers.
False Atmospheric Heating Assumptions of Climate Scientists
Solar radiation t increases with altitude. Black bodies are defined to be those that absorb and radiate with the same intensity and corresponding t. Real, colorful bodies reflect, scatter, absorb, convert and emit radiant energy according to the nature of the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorptivity, emissivity and view factors. The rate of EMR energy transfer from a hot body, th, is Q, w = 5.67Ae(th + 273)4. But it may not be absorbed by all bodies that intercept it, as GHG theory assumes. In particular, hotter radiating bodies do not absorb colder radiation and reemit it more intensely, as GHG back-radiation theory assumes.
The Houston engineer reminds us that above Earth’s stratosphere, thin air T is rather cold, about -80°C. Yet solar radiation t is rather hot, about 120°C. So spacesuits have thermal insulation and radiant reflection. He points out, “The difference, 200°C, is meaningless. On a cold, clear, winter day on snowcapped mountains, dry air T = -10°C and radiation t = 50°C. I can feel them both.”
Where the Difference Between ‘T’ and ‘t’ was Missed
Much of GHE theory fails to make clear distinctions between these two different kinds of temperature, T and t. One temperature, t, is analogous to velocity, 34 km/hour north; the other, T, is analogous to density, 1 kg/liter.
“So 34 km/hour – 1 kg/liter is indeed 33 whatchamacallits by arithmetic, but nobody will ever know what a whatchamacallit is because velocity and density are not connected by nature,” bemoans Dr. Latour.
He further explains, “To clarify this enormous intellectual flaw, take boiling point of water is 100°C (true) and freezing point is 32°F (true), subtract 100 – 32 = 68 (correct arithmetic) and declare atmospheric pressure is 68 psia. The declaration is false because a) the difference between C and F has no meaning, b) there is no physics to connect 68 to pressure, psia, and c) atmospheric pressure is actually 14.7 psia.”
Thus we can see that the 33°C greenhouse gas effect that has everybody so upset and is researched ad nausea to death is not an effect, merely an easily explained pair of facts.
“Therefore, it is quite true the 33°C greenhouse gas effect defined by Dr. Hansen in 1981 as thermal T = 15°C at surface minus radiant t = -18°C to space is whatchamacallit nonsense,” according to Dr. Latour.
How Greenhouse Gas Theorists Compare Apples to Eggs
Latour assures us that since this is irrefutable logic, no experiment is called for. In other words, everybody knows you can’t compare apples to eggs; except, that is, unless you’re a Greenhouse Gas theorist like Hansen.
The sage Texan advises, “Logic trumps nonsense; that is why humans invented it around 400 B.C. No one needs to prove or disprove the existence of whatchamacallits. They are not even imaginary. There is no greenhouse in the sky.”
Planetary atmospheres reflect, scatter, transmit, absorb, emit and diminish stellar radiation intensity at the surface according to Beer-Lambert Law, 121°C incident to Earth’s stratosphere to 15°C at surface. Thermal T of atmospheres increase as gravity compresses gas and converts potential energy to kinetic energy closer to the surface from -80°C in the stratosphere to 14.5°C at the ground. Therefore atmospheres cause the surface to be colder than it would be if the atmosphere were thinner or non-existent. The more O2 (oxygen) is exchanged for higher heat capacity CO2 (carbon dioxide), the colder the surface radiation intensity temperature. Atmospheres are refrigerators, not blankets.
Dr. Latour continues, “GHG theory postulates back-radiation from cold atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the surface, heating it more.” He is in agreement with the ‘Slayers’ group of skeptics who says that violates Second Law of thermodynamics (energy can only be transferred from hot to cold bodies).
Hansen’s hokum led climate science to ‘create’ additional GHE energy, a violation of the First Law of thermodynamics (energy conservation). Latour now joins experts, astrophysicist, Joe Postma, Dr. Matthias Kleepsies and Professor Nasif Nahle in vociferously declaring that the infant science of climatology has spawned an impossible perpetual motion machine; a device that man-made global warming promoters have exploited to promote the nonsense of eternal global warming. Together these highly credentialed specialists from diverse fields, collectively referred to as the ‘Slayers’, are building a compelling body of evidence.
Seven Fine Facts Frustrate Hansen’s Folly
Latour reminds us “CO2 does not trap radiation; like all molecules, it absorbs some incident radiation according to its absorption spectrum and promptly emits it according to its emission spectrum. Moreover, CO2 is not a pollutant; it is inert green plant food. CO2 should not be curtailed, starving Earth’s flora.
As independent science professors are proving, minor solar driven global warming from 1974 to 1998 hasstabilized this century. CO2 has nothing to do with global warming; it actually cools Earth. Arctic ice does not melt because of global warming, increasing T; it melts when the average T > 0, at rate proportional to T, no matter whether T is increasing or decreasing.”
Dr. Latour will be causing quite a stir among government climatologists with his essay of seven scientific facts (33°C whatchamacallit, no blanket, no back-radiation, CO2 no trap, CO2 inert food, no AGW, ice melts).
Each of Pierre Latour’s seven deadly facts slay James Hansen’s CO2 sky dragon and refute GHG and the man-made global warming sham. What Dr. Latour presents is robust and verifiable science.
But the unassuming Latour doesn’t claim his analysis is cutting edge or requiring any special peer review because what he presents is well known to professional physicists and engineers; ”it does not merit a research paper, or research, or experiments.”
As the man-made global warming cult collapses the ‘science’ of human caused global warming is being condemned just as emphatically as Wall Street’s sub-prime mortgage scam. Thus Latour’s final words of advice are succinct and to the point: “Logic just needs clear definitions and common sense, not government spending and regulation.”
"Why do rats leaving a sinking ship come before me."
They consider you their leader.
” The 33°C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.”
That's enough to tell that this latest lunatic fossil you've dug up is a crank.
Nothing like a year-old, unsourced, obviously mendacious random article to make your point, pentax! You're reeling in the converts now!
By the way, I've been away for a while and just skimmed.. but what the hell is it with deniers and spelling? Oil and water it seems.
Chris O'Neill
The temperature data is the data ... there is no necessity to 'define' what it shows. It doesn't matter exactly where you start looking, or what dataset you prefer
The problem I'm pointing out is what the data shows, or rather doesn't show, not the words used to describe the data ...
Anybody should understand that. And what the problem is. But apparently not ...
Stu, have you found your speed difference between hand and box yet. Outside your own head, that is? 1½ years in denial about somthing that obvious is pretty bad if you ask me ... As are the lame excuses for it you\ve tried
Joan, why are you still going on about the hand and box going at different speeds?
THEY DO NOT.
Really, it's not even physics 101 and you're still getting it wrong.
Stop thinking that the hand and the box are moving at different speeds!
"what the data shows, or rather doesn’t show, not the words used to describe the data …
Anybody should understand that"
We do understand what the data shows.
You don't have the first clue.
It has been pointed out to you several times, but you're incapable of understanding even the most basic of maths.
Haha. Is it, really? So, is this the way you "read" long texts with many words? You quickly, quickly skim untill you find a phrase that fits your view? Do you have any real arguments? Do you even understand what is written, if you even has read it?
Now, let's see what big words wow will find after skimming this text.
"First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but energy cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and mass in the Universe is always constant; it merely changes from one form to another.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Heat may only be transferred from a hotter to cooler body, never vice versa. A cooler atmosphere cannot heat the earth’s warmer surface. The greenhouse effect is a myth because its premise clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics! Although all bodies above absolute zero radiate and absorb radiant energy, the warmer body always provides more energy to the cooler body than it receives back from the cooler body. A cooler body therefore can never heat up a warmer body; the cooler body warms and the warmer body cools, never vice-versa.
The Scientific Truth
The truth of the matter is that any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling. Stand near a fireplace that is burning and feel the warmth of the radiant energy, then have two people drape a blanket between you and the fireplace – you will feel cooler! This is like standing outside on a sun shiny day and when a cloud goes over and shields you from the direct rays of the sun, you feel cooler. A child knows this. Regarding the earth, our atmosphere provides cooling in the same manner: Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and any dust that is in the atmosphere all provide cooling.
Why is this? It is very simple. If there were no atmosphere, all of the radiant energy from the sun would hit the earth. With an atmosphere, a portion of the incoming sun’s rays are reflected back toward the sun by striking the gaseous molecules and dust particles, so less radiant energy hits the earth and the earth is cooler because of its atmosphere, see the figure below.
Everyone also knows that cloud cover at night (more insulation) prevents the earth from cooling off as fast as it does when there are no clouds. However, on a relatively clear night if a cloud goes overhead you cannot feel any warming effect of the cloud, so this insulating effect is shown to be minimal compared to the daytime effect.
Anthropogenic Global Warming – more energy out than in – good trick, but violation of First Law of Thermodynamics. The US Patent Office would never patent such a concept.“ (Joseph E. Postma)"
"The Scientific Truth
The truth of the matter is that any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling."
That is just woomancer bollocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
proves the greenhouse gas effect.
panties, why do you keep with the projection?
You skim the blogosphere until you find something or someone that you think you can twist to "AGW is false" then stop.
Then you complain of everyone who actually reads and pretends they do like you do (else you'd have to admit you're a speck of flyshit on humanity's BLT sandwich).
Panties, how does heat travel and WHY does the second law apply.
You have learned the stock phrases (mostly because you've been told what phrases to use not because you understand anything about them), but you don't know anything about how they come about.
Why does the second law apply? How does heat travel around.
Do you have ANY CLUE ****WHATSOEVER*** about what you're cutnpasting out here?
No.
You don't.
You will now demonstrate this by avoiding showing anything about how heat is transferred.
Wow, your argument being...namecalling? Untill you start use an adult language, and behave like an adult, I do't see any point at all answering you.
Wow. A prediction that took onle 3 minutes to be proven correct.
TAKE THAT NOSTRADAMUS!
Wow, even when you get it right you don\t understand;
That's correct. Everybody knows that.Stu knows that, and apparently even you (*).
Sru how ever imagined (out of thin air) that others had claimed the opposite, he even said that they argued the notion ('different speeds') for weeks. Althougn nobody ever did. Neither to start with nor later. Instead his misconception was pointed out within minutes. Explicitly!
And that poor excuse for a joke, still argued the opposite after 1½ years. In denial of reality ...
Still completely wrong, Wow. Nobody except Stu ever started thinking anything like this! Only he desperately wanted to imagine that others made such claims ... In complete denial of reality.
And no Wow, I'm not getting the physics wrong. Luminous, you, Stu, chek end others did! Often badly ...
(*) You've said many more incredibly stupid wrt to this topic, and I rarely pay attention. But it wouln't suprise me if you have argued the opposite too
"" why are you still going on about the hand and box going at different speeds?
THEY DO NOT. "
That’s correct"
Then why do you keep claiming that they do?
"Nobody except Stu ever started thinking anything like this! "
Incorrect, you're the only one thinking anything like that.
"And no Wow, I’m not getting the physics wrong."
Nope, you're getting everything about the physics wrong.
Not to mention incorrect maths, incorrect logic, incorrect physics and incorrect english.
Indeed there is nothing you are not capable of getting completely and utterly wrong and displaying such incapability proudly for all to see.
You are the dark side of the rennaisance man.
No Wow ...
I very much doubt that you understand what the data shows ... Instead you've tried completely irrelevant things about the dataset, the trend, and other diversions. Now knowing what the data is used for. Not even understanding the concept of a hypothesis.
And you even bring up Stefan Boltzman's law, hoping it proves the greenhouse effect. But you who have demonstrated how poor your understanding of even simple physics is, wouldn't know about that.
What you claimed is so stupid, even luminous looks like bright shining star of physics next you that. And he certainly wasn't ..
There you go. Although you (claim to) to know that there are no speed differencies involved, yo imiagin that this claim was being made. It wasn't. Only stu (and later possibly you) tried the idiot argument that others hade made this claim and even defended it wor weeks.
Utter stupidity. In denial of reality ... or dishonest. And probably both.
And (suprise) a staunch believer in all kind of things you neither understand or can argue.
(However, I woulnd't call your word sallad arguing ... not anywhere close).
And still you claim that the hand and box move at different speeds????
Why????
How on earth can you get away with continuing to claim there is something different about the speed of the hand and the box ESPECIALLY after you admit there's no such difference? Do you ignore your own posts when convenient?
"And you even bring up Stefan Boltzman’s law, hoping it proves the greenhouse effect."
No hope needed.
You merely have to comprehend the science.
Something you are, as has been proven absolutely several times for you before, constitutionally incapable of doing.
Don't worry. Intelligence is a bell curve and you just happen to be the bell end of it.
More evidence proving your inability to do any actual thinking is shown by the fact that, despite your continual waving of your CV and qualifications and your super-PhD education, you are unable to describe how the second law comes about and heat transfer happens.
Even undergraduates know enough to explain that.
You, however, because of your pretend education that you continue to prattle on about being completely fictional, are unable to manage even that simple task.
Look hereWow, little moron
This is quite correct, even when 'the mass' is the earths atmosphere:
1. At daytime, the sun is the energy source, and 'tthe mass' between it and the earth surface (relatively) cools the latter.
2. At night, the warmer earth surface (the radiant energy source) faces the colder space, and the same mass (ie atmosphere) 'cools' outer space (compared to its absence).
Simple as that. The greenhose effect has to do with how this mechanism works and differes depending on in which direction the heat is radiated. And Stefan Boltzman is not the explanation for that
Nad you continue to repeat your nonsens Wow. The only one imagining different speeds being argued was Stu .. And he did so for 1½ years ... you joined in, and are now making equally stupid claims.
You can't even read and get simpler statments correctly. And think you cana argue, math, physics, logic and science with me?
I am sorry to say, but I think your grasp of physics is even poorer than Stu's.
But as I said, you are at the prefect place types like you here at Deltoid.
" any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling "
WRONG.
Entirely wrong in so many ways.
You're like those victorian ads selling lenses to "focus the cold".
Another body doesn't emit coolness. You don't absorb cooling.
But given your insistence that the hand pushing a box goes at a different speed from the box itself, the complete inanity of your "provide cooling" is completely predictable.
The only one imagining different speeds being argued was You .. And you did so for 1½ years... and are still doing it.
"1. At daytime, the sun is the energy source, and ‘tthe mass’ between it and the earth surface (relatively) cools the latter."
WRONG.
"2. At night, the warmer earth surface (the radiant energy source) faces the colder space, and the same mass (ie atmosphere) ‘cools’ outer space (compared to its absence)."
WRONG.
Stupidity beyond belief ...
Nobody talks about 'emitting coolness' or 'absorbing cooling'
The mass will provide cooling for the non- (or less) emitting body, relatively speaking. Exactly as I described.
And no, SB's law is still not the proof of the GH-effect.
It seems you suffer from some kind of autism almost ...
"Stupidity beyond belief … "
I know. How can someone be as dumb as you yet still remember how to eat?
Do you have a nanny to feed you or something?
"The mass will provide cooling for the non- (or less) emitting body, "
Nope, absolutely wrong.
Your fire is at about 2000C.
According to you, this cools you when you turn the light on because the light bulb filament is at 3000C.
Not even your fan club are supporting your statement.
THAT is how dumb you are.
Joan,
Do you like incandescent light bulbs?
Do you think that banning them is a bad idea because you think that the light bulb warms the house a little and CFLs being more efficient don't do this, therefore require more heating of the home?
Come on, you're pretending to be the master of masses.
Yet you can't answer simple questions.
More proof (if any were needed) that you're an incompetent.
The moon has no atmosphere and therefore nothing to "cool the outer space" but its night temperatures are much much colder than ours.
Venus has a lot more atmosphere and therefore, if it "cools the planet" like you say, it should be colder than the earth or no warmer, but it's hot enough to melt tin.
When it's a cloudy night, there's no more mass to the atmosphere than on a cloudless night, but one night is warmer than the other and one day cooler than the other.
The blanket over you at night is more mass above you than without the blanket, yet if mass cools you as you assert, why do you get colder without the blanket?
Hillarious, wow really hasn't the least clue of basic physics. Hillarious!
Interresting:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100196238/why-we-figh…
When you put your hand in body temperature water, the mass doesn't cool your hand.
If you put your hand in a bucket of hot water which is between you and the fire in your room, your hand doesn't get "cooled by the mass" in between your hand and the fire.
Wow, you are imagining nonsense. Like Stu was earlier (and still tries to get away with), like Jeff uses as his main method of 'arguing' ..
It is very hard to beleive that all the nonsens you write and claim is the result of so much ignorance and incomprehension it would require.
But hey, this is Deltoid, and many of the commenters here are on your level, or at least close to it ...
"Hillarious, wow really hasn’t the least clue of basic physics."
Hilarious is that your only evidence for this is that Joan says I don't know basic physics.
"Wow, you are imagining nonsense. "
Nope, you've been consistently imagining nonsense.
1) Hand and box moving at different speeds
2) You having an education
3) masses giving out cooling
"...why do you get colder without the blanket?"
So you have never heard avout convection?
"It is very hard to beleive that all the nonsens you write"
Nonsense you are unable to discern. But just "know" is there?
Blind faith.
It's all you have since that doesn't require any thought, just memorisation of key phrases.
"So you have never heard avout convection?"
Joan hasn't.
I have.
And what about convection?
"Hilarious is that your only evidence for this is that Joan says I don’t know basic physics."
Haha, you're so funny. You are very capable of showing everyone your knowledge in basic physics all by your self.
With your logic, the hand in the bucket with boiling water would heat the water even more. You obviosly hasn't the slightes clue on the thermodynamic laws.
OK, so you don't even have "Joan says I don't know physics" then.
I.e. you're just stating it and have absolutely no idea why.
"the hand in the bucket with boiling water would heat the water even more"
Nope.
That may be what YOU think it means, which is why you think it is wrong.
However, that's not the science being wrong, it's you.
You are the problem. Just like Joan.
So you don't understand how convection works? What a surprise.
The only one who doesn't apparently understand convection is you, otherwise you would have responded to the question.
If you don't understand convection, you can't answer the question.
If you do understand it, you could.
Since you haven't, "don't understand convection" is the currently evidence based winner.
Ok, what about another analogy, does the ice cubes in a whisky on the rocks cool or warm the whisky? Shouldn't be to hard for you to answer.
You just asked if I understand convection.
I say I do.
Where do you get the idea I don't understand convection?
I also note you're not berating Joan for not understanding it either.
An analogy for what?
Since you don't appear to know what the word analogy means, here's one definition:
a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/
Noun
A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
A correspondence or partial similarity.
Synonyms
similarity - resemblance - likeness - parity - parallel
For what? Even that you don't understand? You claim that the colder atmosphere warms the warmer earth. Which of course is impossible. So I wonder if you stand by this claim by asking you if an icecube warms the whisky. Is that plain enough for you?
"For what? Even that you don’t understand?"
You said nothing about what the analogy was to be understood. Again the problem here is you.
"You claim that the colder atmosphere warms the warmer earth."
Nope, reality is that the colder atmosphere warms the earth.
This is fact. It is not only possible, it is the only explanation of how the second law comes about.
Is that plain enough for you?
"I wonder if you stand by this claim by asking you if an icecube warms the whisky. "
Yes, it does look like the word "analogy" is your problem here.
Ice cube in whisky is not analogous to the sun-earth-atmosphere-space thermal system.
Do you even know what heat is?
Tell me you're not thinking that heat is some sort of fluid.
Wow
It is very simple: Two bodies of which one is a source (more) of radiative energy.
You insert a pssive mass between them, and this ha the effect of making the colder of the two (relatively9 still colder.
Your moon is a perfect example of this. Introducing a mass between its surface and the 'sky' proves this both on the sunny side, and at night ...
Introducing lightbulbs, blankets and bockets of water .. that's all just in your head. And equally unnecessary
Haha, as I suspected, you don't have the slightes clue what thermodynamic is about. So, 'till next time.
PS The las of your posts has been without any namecalling and ad homs. How does that feel? Anyway, congrats for that. DS
"It is very simple: Two bodies of which one is a source (more) of radiative energy. "
Sorry, what?
What do you mean by "source (more) of radiative energy"?
What is the "(more)" in there and what do you mean by it?
"Source of more radiative energy"?
I think it was signature *skeptic' who introduced the term 'word diarrhea', or possibly Cris.
It's a very fitting term for one character here.
Even the 'analogy' with a blanket preventing (or just lowing) convevctive heat transfer between on warmer body and the (colder) sourounding, works in the way way described:
The passive mass introduced between, lowers the rate of heat transfer.
Just amazing
"You insert a pssive mass between them"
Is that mass in thermal equilibrium?
"Haha, as I suspected"
Like I knew: you don't know what heat is, what convection is or what you're posting.
"Even the ‘analogy’ with a blanket "
Are you and tampax the same person?
They don't understand what analogy means.
It wasn't an analogy.
So, did you run out of arguments?
"preventing (or just lowing) convevctive heat transfer between on warmer body and the (colder) sourounding"
Several problems here.
1) Your assertion about mass cooling things has nothing about convection. That you now bring it in means you agree that you were wrong.
2) The blanket is at room temperature. The same temperature as the room you're in. Your body sees the same temperature world as without the blanket but DOES change its temperature. Your anti-science doesn't allow that to happen.
3) A thin sheet would stop convection from your body into the room 100% as effectively as a thick woolen blanket or TOG 21 duvet. But people don't put sheets over their body to keep warm. They put thick blankets on themselves to keep warm.
"So, did you run out of arguments?"
Nope. I still haven't gotten any answers either.
Because you don't know the answer.
“You insert a pssive mass between them”
What is a passive mass?
Wow ... I misplaced the 'more', shold have read:
The 'more' refers only to the comparison between the two. It may refer to temerature (and a SB blackbody) but that's not required. Not necessarily therma equlibrium either, but for the sake of argument (and in the most basic interpretation) this is assumed.
And SB's law still is not the proof or the main explanation of the greenhouse effect.
And buckets of water, lightbulbs, blankets, moons anda distorting everything will not make things better for you
"The ‘more’ refers only to the comparison between the two"
So it would be correct to say
"Two bodies both radiating, one more than the other", right?
Both bodies radiate, right?
This isn't a difficult question.
Either "yes" or you need to explain what you DO mean.
Only for you, wow:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/26/do-trenberth-and-kiehl-understand-t…
Looking forward to Jonas' explaining "passive mass" as well. I'm sure he has a good reason to bring gravity into this.
Wow, here is the original and perfectly sensible statement, with a simple example:
The drape is the passive mass (ie not an energy source) and should have ambient temperature (but thermal equilibrium is not strictly required, but sufficient)
And you claimed that was wrong. Several times, even: "Entirely wrong in so many ways"
As I said: Stupidity beyond belief. You even provided an example (the moon) prefectly demonstrating what I had just described:. In absence of an intermediate atmosphere the surface facing the sun is warmer, and the surface facing outer space is colder (than they would be with the presence of an atmosphere, like on earth)
Still the simplests thing. But you did not only have severe difficulties understanding this. You claimed this was completely wrong. And started talking about all kinds of imagined gibberish (lightbulbs, buckets, blankets etc)
That's quite hilarious. And Stu too, who again wants to imagine the 'introduction' of his own feverish fantasy products ...
No, you clown, "passive mass" has a very distinct meaning in physics. Of course, you are blissfully unaware of that.
Nope Stu ..
You don't need gravity to talk about a mass ... Particularly not in this case.
Again, it is you imaginary 'six years studies of physics' which make you imagine thins far beyond your comprehension. As we've seen many times before.
And, have you forgotten? You never saw anything wrong with luminous physics ...let alon 'distinctly wrong'
:-)
You are and remain a total and complete joke, Stu.
So you don't know what "passive mass" means in physics, and are too stupid and/or stubborn to look it up.
Duly noted.
And so we see that stu also have difficulties comprehending the language.
"You don’t need gravity to talk about a mass … Particularly not in this case."
was obviously a too long sentence for him to take in.
Stu as I said ... nothing I explain to you guys is that complicated. A hand pushing a box sliding over a surface ..
But it is enough for many of you to lose it. And yes, this has been noted.
Your fantasies have always been your own only ...
Hasn't it struck you Stu, that for 1½ year here you have had exactly zip to say or contribute of any substance.
Trying different words and phrases, imagining claims, inventing your own reality etc ... But absolutely nothing of substance.
And you regularly side with the most moronic commenters and even their claims.
Why is that you think?
...and pentax doesn't know what "passive mass" means either. Is there a law for deniers that disallows you from looking anything up?
This is "the hand must move faster also" all over again.
I WAS NOT THE ONE TO BRING UP "PASSIVE MASS", MORON. Just because you clowns have no concept of physics does not mean that the terms you use have actual meanings you are unaware of.
It also does not excuse you from looking it up and retracting some of the more egregiously moronic formulations once they are pointed out to you.
And again, defending that "the hand needs to move faster also" proves you have never passed a physics class. Ever.
Really?
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
Look, clownshoe, if you see a phrase new to you that you like and want to steal, it's usually best to wait a little more than five minutes to use it while talking to the very people you stole it from.
You've done this half a dozen times now. It's pathetic.
Is there anything of substance to address? So far, all I seem to recall is "90%, I don't see it, and no, I won't read attributions", "luminous is wrong, but I can't say how", "hand moves faster also is perfectly reasonable", and now "passive mass".
Meanwhile, you can't spell, you can't read, and you can't do math. I'm just trying to address those issues first.
Yes, I have tried to explain basic concepts to you in dozens of different ways. Heck, I've tried telling you that you wouldn't look like such a dolt if you used spell-check a dozen times.
This is now a bad thing? I'd say it's almost angelic patience with a stupid troll.
You're just going to say "different speeds between hands and box" again, aren't you? Let me pre-empt that by quoting "the hand must move faster also".
I think, coming from someone so dense and annoying that he's been confined to his own thread, that IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
One must be properly twisten in the head for claming
“You don’t need gravity to talk about a mass … Particularly not in this case.”
means "you don’t know what “passive mass” means in physics"
English just isn't his strong side.
Stu, there is absolutely nothing complicated with introducing a mass between to radiating bodies, and requiring it to be (energetically) passive.
You are once more derailing of things in your fantasy, just when you were unable to understand that in order for the hand to accelerate it needed to increas its speed ...
And plese, don't forget Stu: You could see absolutely nothing wrong with luminous long winded attempts at 'physics'
But I don't require you to retract your nonsens. I believe you when you say that you can see nothing wrong with it ...
Apart from the different speeds of course. That it was only you and your imagination who concocted this up, is so obvious even you must have noticed this by now. Especially since it's been copied squarly in front of you again and again ...
Sorry Stu, you still come across like the young kid coming home from school after having learnt a new word which he doesn't quite understand, but is eager to use at the first best occasion ...
different speeds .. dependet variables ... officially introduced in the equations ... and now 'passive mass' in the philosophical understanding ... in contrast to active mass. And even this done wrongly
What a total joke you are Stu ... But hey,, you can point out the typos. That's always useful
pentax, you sniveling lying sycophant.
Jonas brings up "passive mass".
I point out "passive mass" has a specific, gravitational meaning in physics, and using the term is stupid.
Jonas says "you don't need gravity to talk about a mass", missing the point completely and spectacularly.
You defend Jonas.
You are both dolts. Again, very slowly...
Saying
"Passive
Mass"
Was
Stupid.
Get it now?
" any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling"
WRONG.
"The drape is the passive mass (ie not an energy source)"
So "passive mass" means "does not emit radiation itself", right?
"was obviously a too long sentence for him to take in."
Nope, the reason why it is not understood to be right is BECAUSE IT IS WRONG.
No matter how short or long that sentece is, it remains WRONG.
"Stu as I said … nothing I explain to you guys is that complicated"
Indeed.
It is simply wrong.
"One must be properly twisten in the head for claming
“You don’t need gravity to talk about a mass … Particularly not in this case.”"
Totally agree.
How could Joan get their head so bent they can say that and thing it is right?
"there is absolutely nothing complicated with introducing a mass between to radiating bodies, and requiring it to be (energetically) passive."
No, it's simply wrong.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to get a mass that is energetically passive.
"You could see absolutely nothing wrong with luminous long winded attempts at ‘physics’ "
Thats because nothing wrong was demonstrated.
Just like you can't demonstrate it now.
"Apart from the different speeds of course. "
There you go again, thinking that the hand and the box are going at different speeds!!!!
Joan, why do you insist on thinking that they go at different speeds?
Is your insane belief that: requre[ing] it to be (energetically) passive.”" is remotely possible the reason why you will not answer my question about the meaning of your statement “The ‘more’ refers only to the comparison between the two” is that you would have to admit that both bodies radiate?
Are you clueless or just a liar?
Stu, you are so ncreadiby stupid.
If the hand is to accelerate, it must increase its speed, ie move quicker.
And to avoud all confusion (apart among the hoplessly stupid) it was even particularly and explicity pointed out that the 'move quicker' refered to 'accelerate'.
This case is so closed and all the egg is in your face Sstu. But I'll gladly open it again and show it all to you.
And you imaagine that this or that popping up in your mind 'proves' anything? About me? Sure you believe your own fantasies. But they don't involve me or any topic here.
And you are on Wow-level now claiming to be unable to see all the bad violations of simple physics lunimous tried to get in and out of his mess ..
As I said: Zip substance. Same with the 90%. Zip! I doubt that you even understand the question.
And now, you have not tried to explain concepts. You have put out words and phrases hoping the would show something, anything and help 'your side'. A´nd they never did. Not this time either ...
Really funny is that you think Deltoid's erasing my comments elsewhere proves anything ...
Jeff claimed something similar. And that yours and Wow's support amounted to him being more correct ...
He had the same problem Stu. He never was close to anything relevant.
Thanks for the tautology. Your statement has no mathematics. No mathematics -> no meaning. Your statement is meaningless.
BTW, for people who know that meaning depends on mathematics, I'd say you nearly always need at least 14 years of data to get an uncertainty range above the zero line. For example, enter start date 1985, end date 1999 with GISSTemp.
Some clowns will probably try to tell us that global temperature goes through a "hiatius" every 13 years. They will, of course, say they know what they're talking about.
"If the hand is to accelerate, it must increase its speed, ie move quicker. "
Shit, are you the emperor of obvious land?
accelerate == increase it's speed == move quicker.
Do you want to tell everyone about the new discovery that up is upwards and higher up now?
"And you are on Wow-level now claiming to be unable to see all the bad violations of simple physics lunimous tried to get in and out of his mess .. "
There are none at all on this page.
Are you suggesting we have to imagine they are there first???
Wow ... you are the clueless one. and possibly a liar too. At least you are so often so helplessly wrong, and contradicting yoursel that this seems like the most obvious explanation.
" At least you are so often so helplessly wrong"
BWAHAHAHAHA!
This is fucking priceless!
The moron who can't do anything with anything for anything except post complete and utter bullshit AND DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE'S SAYING thinks that merely claiming "oh, you're so wrong" works!!!!
There are none on page 51 either.
So where are they?
Absence of existence means they don't exist. It means they aren't there.
You can't even say what is wrong, can you, Joan.
That's because any claim with meaning can be understood and if wrong (which you have always and ever will be: it seems a pathology for you, see a shrink) can be proven wrong.
That's why you can't say what is wrong.
Hell you can't even explain what you mean when you use words!!!!
Deadheadz:
You're claiming there is zero signal. 16 years of data does not prove that.
Joan, you've got to be the only entity to score negative IQ on a test!
For example. even after being given the definition of "analogy" you STILL thought that an analogy was an example!
For the wilfully ignorant fools I can get a 19 YEAR "hiatius". Try start date 1977 and end date 1996 with GISSTemp. That'll give you your wet dreams.
But the deniers said that it didn't MATTER what dates you used! That was their SOLE defence against the valid criticism of their claims of "cherry picking" the results.
Wow ...
Well, it wasn't obvious to Stu, and still isnt. He has been going on for ages. As have you. And
Yes, plenty was demnstrated. In detail. And if you couldn't see that, not even find where it was, that's a problem you have. But stu couldn't see anything wrong either. Although he claimed to have studied physics for six years. And now derails on 'passive mass' which he apparently cannot use correctly even in the sense he wants to imply.
And you are wrong about the energetically passive mass ... What I mean is the obvious, that it is not a source of energy. Just like CO2 in the atmosphere isn't ...
Funny that you never manage to get anything correctly in your stupid fervor to fault me with silly word games ...
Especially when you seem to get every other sentence and claim completely wrong.
This time you got the hand/box thing right. But failed to realize that the blow hit the wrong person.
Poor sad bunch ... but Hey this is Deltoid
"Well, it wasn’t obvious to Stu"
You just made that up, Joan.
Chris O'Neill
The data is the data. That's correct. It does not depend on exactly how I describe it (mathematically). It is still the empirical data. And I was saying that it poses a problem for the pet scare hypothesis here, and a growing problem if the data doesn't change.
It is possible that you are unaware of this. But that doesn't change anything. Unawareness seems to be a prerequixite for many regulars here ..
Some here even seem to mean that emoircal data doesn't mean much. But probably not all the time, and maybe just due to poor phrasing ...
"Yes, plenty was demnstrated. In detail. And if you couldn’t see that, not even find where it was, that’s a problem you have"
Well you've demonstrated that you're unable to find where it was.
Indeed you've never been able to demonstrate where it was, not for several years.
That's a problem you have, Joan: you can't find your imaginary posts because you have to post here in the real world.
This has been demonstrated.
In detail.
For years.
Epic.
Fail.
Joan.
"The data is the data. That’s correct"
That is also content free.
"And I was saying that it poses a problem for the pet scare hypothesis here"
Yes, you definitely keep on saying that, despite it being wrong, it being demonstated in equisite detail why you're wrong and even you yourself are unable to define what problem it could pose.
Indeed, all you DO is say it.
But the problem is, you're making it up.
Wow, No, I don't need to make things up. That's your, Jeff's, chek's and Stu's department.
He thought the statement was so ambiguous he started lamenting about different speeds hand/box and still does a year and a half later. And threw in 'dependet variables' and officially introduced equations' too. Just like he now wants to lament about an old and rather philosophical meaning of passive wrt to a mass.
There is no need to, but his needs are obviously very different than dealing with anything relevant. Very likely due to personal issues. Just as I said: Nothing of any relevande here ...
"And you are wrong about the energetically passive mass … What I mean is the obvious,"
I take it you're egg shaped and sit on walls a lot, Joan?
I am absolutely correct about there being no such energetically passive mass.
Hell, you can't even manage to explain what the hell you mean!
"that it is not a source of energy."
Well, like unobtanium then. I.e. if it DID exist, you'd be right.
Problem with your wild-ass-guesses is that no such material exists.
"Just like CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t …"
So you're saying that the US Air Force were lying when they said that CO2 absorbs IR radiation???
"to fault me with silly word games …"
It's such a problem for you, isn't it Joan.
Having to say words and sentences that MEAN something and explaining them if they don't mean anything.
Diddums.
Wow you moron. Not only did I find the, I pointed them out in tetail. And additionally corrected them, showed how it should be done instead.
But you couldn't even see this, Of course it must have been impossible for you to see any of the many and often bad violations ...
But that's you Wow ... you just have to live with that. And take my word for it. Or Stu's for the opposite. And remain a moron ...
"Wow, No, I don’t need to make things up"
I agree. You don't *need* to.
You don't do anything BUT that, though.
"different speeds hand/box"
There you go again! Wibbling on about how the hand and box go at different speeds.
Why do you continue to believe that this is true, Joan?
" And threw in ‘dependet variables’"
NOW who's playing silly word games, Joan.
Naughty naughty.
" Not only did I find the, I pointed them out in tetail."
You keep typing so furiously that you forget how to spell.
And you do so because you think that by typing furiously you will somehow make your lies come true.
Go on, then, where did you point anything out, in detail.
If you did, in detail, then you can show them.
Or are these your heffalumps?
"But you couldn’t even see this,"
Yes, I'm unable to see things that never existed, Joan.
This is a huge problem for you deniers, though.
" Of course it must have been impossible for you to see any of the many and often bad violations … "
I've seen THOUSANDS, Joan.
Just from you.
I've not seen any you've pointed out, though. Because they don't exist. You have never done so.
As has been proven many many times before.
"And remain a moron …"
Well, if that's your goal, then feel free to remain a moron.
Wow ... long sentences just aren't your thing.
CO2 is a passive gas, it does not add or substract any energy in the atmosphere ...
But that's a long sentence too
Joan, reality isn't something you're comfortable with.
"CO2 is a passive gas, it does not add or substract any energy in the atmosphere … "
And that's just bollocks too.
As I said Wow .. you could not even see where I pointed them out ... Understanding the meaning of simple physical descriptions just isn't your thing. Either.
And you're still unable to understand simple English, are you, Joan. I.e. this sentence:
"I’ve not seen any you’ve pointed out, though. Because they don’t exist. You have never done so."
Just doesn't manage to get into your brain, does it.
Just so tiny, that brain. Tiny winy little head full of the most horrendous rubbish.
"As I said Wow .. you could not even see where I pointed them out "
As I have said, you would need to have done so.
You still, years later, haven't managed to do that.
Understanding the meaning of simple physical descriptions just isn’t your thing.
You much prefer the stuff you make up.
Go on, Joan.
Show everyone where you've written all this stuff you claim.
It doesn't exist, does it. That's why you don't.
Still trying to find it, Joan? Can't?
I guess you're even more incompetent than you thought!
Do you know what I think of about Joan here on this thread?
It's a lot like the episode of the Simpsons when Bart draws "Insert Brain Here" on the back of Homer's head. You know, where Homer tries to spin round to read the back of his own head and the entire family laugh at his antics, then as Homer continues his insanity, the family find it no longer funny and disturbing.
Not only in how dumb Joan is, but also in how his bizarre fantasy ravings have people laughing at him then wondering how sick he is. Then finally being REALLY worried that people like that are allowed out on their own where they can get hurt.
No Wow, it isn't bollocks. Your rantings are though. And you don't even seem to know what or whom you are swinging at.
ANd:
Have you yet managed to explain how the insertion of a (ambient temperature, passive) mass between two bodies of different temperature does not cause the colder of them to get a little cooler? (Receive a little less radiative energy)
Have you?
Wow ... you couldn't see it when you were sitting right next to the conversation commenting ... of course you can't find it now.
Seeing and finding thinsg just aren't your thing.
You are better at imagining things, even if the often are mutally contradicting.
"No Wow, it isn’t bollocks."
It's complete bollocks, Joan. Complete and utter bollocks. Bollocks of the most high order.
Such a load of bollocks hasn't been said since some dude sold a sack of magic beans.
"Have you yet managed to explain how the insertion of a (ambient temperature, passive) mass between two bodies of different temperature does not cause the colder of them to get a little cooler?"
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
You haven't explained what heat is.
"Wow … you couldn’t see it when you were sitting right next to the conversation commenting "
That's because such a conversation never happened.
The detailing only happened in your head, Joan.
That is why you've not pointed out this conversation.
It's why you've never pointed out any place where you pointed out this conversation.
It's why you've never even pointed out where you pointed out the pointing out.
Because that conversation never happened.
It would be so easy for you to prove me wrong if you were right, but you're absolutely wrong and know it, therefore you avoid ever pointing out where this conversation you insist happened took place.
"Seeing and finding thinsg just aren’t your thing. "
It isn't yours, for definite.
After all, you've not managed to find it, have you.
How come my not being able to find imaginary coversations is a problem with my skills, Joan?
I say the conversations are imaginary. They never existed. Therefore not finding them is proof they don't exist. I'm providing the exact thing I need to do to prove my point.
I find no such event and that proves that no such event happened.
I said the only reason one would say "the hand has to move faster also" is because there is the possibility that there could be a difference. If the speeds -- by definition of the experiment -- are the same, only a goddamned moron would bring up the hand speed at all. And only an even bigger moron would continue to defend it for years.
I see you're getting upset again, Jonas. Your spelling is even worse than normal, which is the usual sign that you need to take a minute to wipe the spittle off your monitor.
If you're talking about dependeNt variables, yes, introducing the hand speed (by virtue of mentioning it) is doing exactly that. GSW introduced one for no good reason, and you're still defending it. Even GSW is staying out of the substance of that particular discussion, sweetheart. Think about that.
Obvious and stupid lie. I said you "officially introduced a variable". Inbred mules realize that that does not mean "officially introduced equations". This has been explained to you repeatedly. As usual, you ignore the explanations, wait a few days and say the same stupid thing all over again, hoping against hope that nobody notices.
You are desperate, dense as a post and pathetic.
Wait. Really? The commonly scientific definition of "passive mass", which is 100% about gravity, not old, not philosophical and commonly accepted is now trumped by the new magical Jonas definition of "absorbs all energy, emits none"... oh, wait, it's the 2001 monolith, isn't it, Jonas?
Must be that "real" science you keep talking about and are unable to define. Just as you are unable to define "passive mass", "analogy", "dependent variable" and oh so many other things.
Also, as a random aside, "provide cooling" again proves you have not passed a single physics course in your life. Ever.
Heck, Joan's Unobtanium breaks Kirchoff's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
Which is one he's never heard of before. It doesn't appear in the Bible or the denialist talking points.
INTERIOR, EVENING:
Jonas screeches in his mother's basement:
"THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT!"
Stu, you said
Yes, you made such claims. But that doesn't make them true. Especially not if it is explained to you just minutes after that this isn't what is meant. And if it already in the first claim is pointed out that the what is referred to is that thebox acellerates.
So this things is once more settled. As it was just minutes after you derailed Stu. Get over it. You made a fool of your self. Mostly because you are a fool, and now (and since 1½ years) everybody can read it in plain language.
Your fantasies about what is implied remin only that. Irrelevant. And even if one accepts them, they were sorted out within minutes.
If you have anything of calue to say about a passice mass inserted between two, but differently radiating bodies, why don't you say it. So far you are only once again on a derailing tour ...
And don't talk to me about 'scientific' Stu. You could not see anything wrong with luminous many violations .. you are not able to argue anyting about physics. That's probably why you try 'passive mass' as the next angle. And alsoe get this wrong ...
I would be very surprised if your salary is payed on a voluntary basis, ie if somebody actually pays with his own money for your services ...
Absolutely no value for 1½ years ...
"Yes, you made such claims."
Those claims are true.
At least if you're conversing with someone who understands (or is supposed to understand) English.
" Especially not if it is explained to you just minutes after that this isn’t what is meant. "
But BEFORE it is explained that isn't what's meant, what then?
Are you blaming Stu for not being a fortune teller with perfect future vision?
"If you have anything of calue to say about a passice mass inserted between two,"
You're dribbling into your gruel again, Joan.
"but differently radiating bodies,"
So they are all radiating.
"You could not see anything wrong with luminous many violations "
You make that claim, but that doesn't make them true.
For crying out loud Jonas, stop posting drunk.
"in the first claim is pointed", "that the what is referred to", "thebox", "acellerates", "remin", "calue", "passice", "anyting ", "alsoe", "ie".
This is ONE SINGLE POST, Jonas. You're a clown.
Also, we've now had several of these:
You: Something stupid
Me: Hey, that's stupid
You: No it's not, because
Me: Sure, but you still said something stupid
You: Herp, derp, derp.
"Passice mass" indeed, Jonas. Sheesh.
Ach, that was interpreted as a tag.
That should be
You: No it's not, because [something else entirely]
Stu ... yes ... comment about typos ... that's your level.
A hand pushing a box ... Ouch ... that's getting far too physical, too difficult. And a drape between you and a fire, or atmosphere on the moon. Start harping on about dependent variables, and gravity or not. And derailing .. and not ever ever having a point or substantial contribution.
A total joke, Stu
Wow .. every single violation of luminous' physics I pointed out was correct. And you couldn't even find out where I did ..
That's your level of comprehension of physics, Wow. None!
Jonas, sweetheart, we know you don't understand why you are so wrong.
Funny Stu:
"A hand pushing a box … Ouch … that’s getting far too physical, too difficult."
Well we'll tone back the science detail a little for you, Joan. How's that? Feel better?
"Wow .. every single violation of luminous’ physics I pointed out was correct."
Actually, mathematically, that would be undefined, rather than "all".
You have never pointed out any violation of luminous' physics.
Zero isn't actually "all" of zero.
"And you couldn’t even find out where I did .. "
Did what?
Nothing.
"Almost accurate, you just missed whos imagination was stupid"
That would be yours, Joan.
"Do you think gravity is a factor when some mass is inserted between to bodies radiating at different levels?"
Why do you think it needs to be asked?
Tell us, Joan, what makes the two radiating bodies radiate?
Joan, VERY simple question for you.
What causes the earth to radiate, do you think?
I guess Joan can't answer that one and will wait until Stu or someone else comes along and try to hide their ignorance of the physics.
Your meaningless claims pose a problem for nothing. 16 years of data just shows we don't know the previous trend has changed. Big deal.
Chris O'Neill
What's meaningless on this blog is something very different than me pointing out, or explaining obvious things, Or things that should be obvious to anybody who has studied some basic physics or (on a lsigtly hugher level) understands what science is about and how it's done and works.
You too start taking about the 'previous trend' instead. And seem at least a little bit aware of the problem. But are still willing to downplay it ... or hoping that the future will come to the rescue
Wow .. you are just boring ... and blindly rambling and making nonsense up ... and that's boring too.
You only value is in defining the level of this blog. But even I must confess you are at the lower end.
What a strawman.
I start talking about something because you're talking about nothing.
What problem? A "hiatius" in what?
Chris O'Neill
The problem is with the hypothesis .... You do know what a hypothesis is? You do understand what empirical observations are or might be for a hypthesis ..
And no, I didn't start talking about the previous trend. I did however point out, that many on your side are very eager to switch to it or some 'long term trend'. As did you
And I assure you, it certainly is not me who is the source of meaningless quibbling (although I admit to sometimes respond to it, thereby keeping it coming)
You too had a long stretch of meaningless pouting, I remember.
:-)
The only hypothesis in trouble that I can see Jonarse, is your carefully undefined nonsense relating to short periods of time.
And you still cannot manipulate your 'hiatius' to explain how we saw record ice melt in the Arctic this past summer in the sixteenth year of 'hiatiusing'.
File under another crock from a crank repeating Monckton memes he doesn't understand.
The new prediction from MetOffice shows that Austrialis carbon will be effective:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-r…
:-)
" and blindly rambling and making nonsense up"
How can I make up the question "What makes the earth radiate"???
How can make up "What do you mean by passive mass"???
Looks like I called it 100%: you cannot and will not answer any questions about science. Because you're faking it all.
"What’s meaningless on this blog is something very different than me pointing out, or explaining obvious things"
Agreed.
Meaningless things are things like your claim "a haitus is a problem". Or "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" or "a mass cools things".
"The problem is with the hypothesis …. You do know what a hypothesis is? You do understand what empirical observations are or might be for a hypthesis ."
Go on, you were saying what the hypothesis' problem was.
You failed to finish.
What is the problem with the hypothesis?
Olap, since you don't know (and have blankly ADMITTED you don't know) how to find a temperature trend, how do you think you have interpreted the Met Office's statements correctly?
Wow, so you don't think that Australia's carbon tax has anything to do with the new prediction? ;-)
So Olap, you agree that you don't know if you're reading the statement right or wrong :-P
Heck, I can help you out right now.
You haven't a clue what the forecast is saying.
Olap, do you agree that there will be an even higher temperatures over the next decade? ;-)
chek
Well, I am talking about the instrumental record. You know: empirical observations. They most certainly aren't the hypothesis.
But yes, the observations are growing problem for the per scare hypothesis here. I didn't really expect you to understand how and why. Not even after I explained it. I more expect you to share your profound insights on som 'Jonarse' or Monckton or start gpoin on about arctic sea ice instead.
Wow .. you are probably the most meaningless commenter here. But you can't quite relax, there is competition for that price ...
So Jonarse, it should then be easy for you to explain how the instrumental record fits into the bigger picture which includes record arctic melt in the sixteenth year of your 'hiatius'.
But of course you can't do that without losing your slippery evasivenessm which is the hallmark of the lying denier.
Wow ... but here is som praise for you. You got one detail right actually (probably only by chance, but still):
I haven't i detail what problem the observations are causing for the hypothesis. Just hinted ...
And I think those a little smarter than the aboslute bottomfeeders here, those who know a little something about science, aboutwhat a hypothesis, what for and how it is used etc ... shouldunderstand and be aware of this.
But I don't expect those (on your side) who do tell you openly. And here, I would be very suprised if any of you understand.
And BTW, I've explained it in quite som detail earlier. But I wouln't expect you to have understood anything then either, not even to find where afterwards ... those just aren't your things.
:-)
"Wow .. you are probably the most meaningless commenter here".
You'll find that you make by far the majority of meaningless comments here Jonarse. And quite a few of those don't even manage to struggle across into unintelligibility barrier.
"And here, I would be very suprised if any of you understand".
Climate science is generally well understood by many here.
Understanding your gnomish, non sequiturial and often dessicated thinking processes, not so much.
*from* unintelligibility.
chek ..
arctic sea ice is a diversion from the only really central question. I have never really bothered to bother about it ...
And the notion that the temperature record should be secondary tho 'the bigger picture' which supposedly is about arctic summer ice ..
.. is just what I expect from someone how feels that 'denier' and stupid name calling somhow strengtens his position.
As I've said many times: Thosw who have these needs, never have anything of substance to contribute. They are shouters from the sideline of a game they don't understand, not even know what the field is ..
chek
Ah yes, chek. Many here think copying and repeating talking points bare reaching SkSc-level is 'understanding climate science' or even believing that the phrases and offered there are the science ..
But most here don't even reach up to that level. And as I've said many times. Those who feel the need to label others as 'deniers' most certainy don't understand science.
Look chek, almost non of you here has been able to argue even their own position with any accuracy. Heck most of you are patently incapable of behaving like adults. You are one of them.
And yes, I can judge the scientific merits when they exist, and als point out the problems and gaping holes, which many try to cover with armwaving and more words ...
And those here who have managed to argue their stance and stuck to actual science and proper arguments have been extremely rare and few ...
You claim is absolutely laughable, chek
I wonder why you would make such stupid assertions?
Heck, I forgot. That's the only think you manage to do ... Sorry
chek .. it is good of you to defend über-moronic commenter Wow here ... as I've said, that's his best contribution here. That he gets others here to side with him even draw support ...
That's the level here chek. And you say many here 'understand climate science' ...
How cute ...
"I wonder why you would make such stupid assertions?"
The 'stupid assertion' here Jonarse is your carefully undefined 'hiatius' that indicates you want to salami slice and cherry pick and ignore data which are inconvenient to the latest in a long string of lying denier narratives.
So where did that mysterious heat come from to give record Arctic melt in the sixteenth year of your alleged 'hiatius'? That you have no answer and no context is a strong indication you're parroting somebody else's tripe (Monkton in this case) that you don't understand.
chek .. as I*ve already pointed out several times:
There is nothing 'carefully selected' about the empirical data. The problem is with the hypothesis. And if things don't change very drastically, these problems will increase rapidly.
The funny things is that you here (many of you) somehow want it (or even believe it ) to be with how the record is described exactly ...
It isn't! But I notice that you often think that 'the science' is the choice of words used to describe or label things. That the words themselves settle things. And not how things realate to actual reality ...
Unfort
unately I've seen it many times. And not only as low level blogs with heavy moderation, but also as the weight of the argument more officially and (again unfortunately) even by those labelled 'climate scientists'
But if you are avoiding reality, if your purpose in the end is not measured by how it holds up compared to reality, it's not science.
Regarding your 'strong indication' wrt to a question you would rather talk about, that's again total nonsense as an argument ...
The stupidity of your arguments is just astonishing. A hint would be: You reveal less ignorance by continuing your lare 'Jonarse lying denier'- tripe
"There is nothing ‘carefully selected’ about the empirical data."
So you agree with the data.
Good.
Now stop cherry picking when you're going to start working out trends.
"The problem is with the hypothesis"
What problem?
"But most here don’t even reach up to that level."
Like I said to another rectal-cranial-inversion troll, since you have you head shoved up your arse, you see everything upside-down.
You're too dumb to read, too thick to think. And convinced you're not the ignorant donkey you are.
"I haven’t i detail what problem the observations are causing for the hypothesis. Just hinted …"
Nope, you've avoided.
Like everything.
There's no problem with AGW.
Your assertion is incorrect.
Deal with it.
"But yes, the observations are growing problem for the per scare hypothesis here."
Yes, your scare hypothesis is in serious trouble, Joan.
"And I think those a little smarter than the aboslute bottomfeeders here, those who know a little something about science, aboutwhat a hypothesis, what for and how it is used etc … shouldunderstand and be aware of this. "
We do.
However, you're so stupid you can't even think.
"I didn’t really expect you to understand how and why"
That's because you've never said what it was.
Not even hinting at it.
The end is nigh for Joan.
The empirical data is devastating to his scare hypothesis.
chek .. you just claimed:
in an attempt to defend Wow ...
As I just pointed out, reality is rarely ever a part of the argument. And precision just isn't your thing... probably even counting is difficult. And numbers in science, or worse even, dealing with statistics, and quantifications and comparisions ... that's just way to far above your head. Isn't it.
Funny, it's a treat many of you scare-screamers have in common
re just saying that I was responsible for
Wrong Wow ...
I both hinted it pretty bluntly here recently, and described and explained it in quite som detail earlier.
But you wouldn't know that, As you've told us many times: You are unable to find anything. And not even when i'äs right in front of you, you manage to read and understand what it says ..
Hence you endless clueless meaningless incoherent ramblings ...
But Jeff Harvey thinks your existence and support strengthens his fantasies ... I find that very cute
"I both hinted it pretty bluntly here recently,"
there's your problem, then. you think "hinted" means "didn't say".
That's OK, we all know you're too stupid to know what words mean. That's why we keep telling you about your bad spelling.
So far you've been too stupid to learn.
"As I just pointed out, reality is rarely ever a part of the argument"
I think Joan has just told everyone here what the problem is.
However, Joan is far too stupid to know it.
Here's a hint, Joan. You have a devastating problem.
"And not even when i’äs right in front of you,"
You've had enough hints so far to work out the problem here for you.
Poor Joan, too stupid to understand what he's saying.
" you manage to read and understand what it says .. "
Thank you joan for saying out loud that I manage to read and understand what it says.
Long sentence, i know, Wow ...
I'll try to help you a little:
So you still can't see the problem, Joan?
Even when it's right there on the same page!
And I agree, if it isn't written down, I can't read it. That's because reality is where I live. You live elsewhere.
Poor little Joan, too dumb to read.
Wow .. I don't consider you to be a problem ...
.. for anything relevant, that is.
I agree, Joan, the climate certainly is warming.
It seems to me Jonarse that you're so off your face that even you can't stomach any of the destinations any of your possible confused lies will take you to.
So much so that you can barely manage a complete sentence, let alone make any of your customary failed attempts at cogent and reasoned argument.
Crank nobody crashes and burns. News and weather at 11.
(he hinted)
:-D
chek .. I have not once had the need to lie about anything here.
However it is very hard to believe that the many many bottomlessly stupid claims made about me 8and other things) are made in good faith.
I know you guys aren't the brightest bunch, and also that you are blinded by activism and faith ... but if you truly believe all the things you say you want to be true, even I would be flabbergasted in sheer dispelief!
It's funny that you of all here talk about "cogent and reasoned argument"
However, with you I haven't seen any need to explain anything on a higher scientific or only technical level. Since i know that you neither comprehend, nor reply, nor have the ambition to produce anything higher than your 'Jonarse lying denier fuckwit'-level which is your hallmark.
And I usually assume that people try their best arguments. Wow and Jeff do too, as does Stu ...
And there is absolutely nothing there, chek. Just your inane repetition of wishful projections
You're right Joan, you've done nothing but lie on this thread.
And you're also correct in admitting the climate is warming dramatically.
Poor ole Joan.
Heart as big as the whole outdoors, but doesn't have a single brain in his whole body.
Just in case anyone thinks Joan is telling the truth, he's already affirmed that to him:
“As I just pointed out, reality is rarely ever a part of the argument”
"And I usually assume that people try their best arguments"
This doesn't apply to you, though.
"And there is absolutely nothing there, chek. Just your my inane repetition of wishful projections".
Corrected that for you Jonarse. Which is exactly what I expect to be your definition of 'hiatius'. You know, the one that daren't speak its name or describe its properties because it's lower than lo-grade denier hogwash? Nothing, nothing at all is what you'll come up with. Which is exactly all you've had from the very start.
chek .. .
Maybe you think you were clever, but you weren't
And you still get the argument the wrong way, The hiatus is not the centerpiece, or how it is defined or described, or what exact dates of what dataset are used.
the data itself is what it is. And there is another hypothesis which needs to be reconciled with that data. And this is getting more and more problemativ. Regardless of how many times you try 'Jonarse lying denier fuckwit'and the like, or the others try equally stupid stupidities.
That's your level chek. You have never risen above it. I've never needed to stoop so far.
And in contrast to very many here, i don't need to lie, I don't need to make claims in bad faith. I don't need to fabricate my own 'facts ' to support my story. That's all on your side ... and massively I'm afraid.
And sombody like you claims that people here know and understand climate science quite well ...
Stupid wordgames .. that's all you have chek ... and not even that
Jonarse, you lying denier fuckwit, the trend isn't seperate from the data, it emerges from them.That's the circle YOU are required to square. But being a lying denier fuckwit you cannot.
chek ... you usual nonsense
The data is there, and the pet scare hypthsesis is too ...
The latter has he problem with the former, and it's a growing problem.
Your labelling attempts have zip to do with this, but trying different 'words' seems to be the pinnacle of your scientific understanding.
The growing problem, Jonarse, is your own ineptitude.
That and your dishonest attempts to deflect from your own inability to explain what the word soup you use actually means.
But rest assured your convenient inability is noted.
chek ...
You are hadly one to tell me about 'ineptitude'
Of course I cn explain in quite some detail what the problem is. I even have. In quite som detail. But you guys just aren't dealing with science. Or have the knowledge it takes. Or the interest to find out. You are blind but staunch believers in somthing you can't argue.
That's why you produce and hide behind so much stupidity ...
And you chek .. you haven't even been close to stating an argument. Not even four your own side ... you have pointed to the 2012 low arctic summer ice ... and believed it is an argument. But failed even there ...
Whatever that is, sweetheart, I hope you don't hurt yourself.
Stu ... that's your appropriate level .. stay there, and you won't hurt yourself
"you have pointed to the 2012 low arctic summer ice … and believed it is an argument"
It's not an 'argument', it's a real-world manifestation of the heat your current darling 'hiatius' has no explantion for.
chek .. If you would consider "real-world manifestation of [things you have] no explantion for"
you couldn't even start, nor could the IPCC, they don't have any explanations for ice either. Not in the arctic nor elsewhere. You (and others) want to talk about 2012 summer artic ice, later you wanted to talk about Sandy, or other weather events.
But science is not on the map. Cheap media talking points .. and the stupid childish attempts to insult. That' your level chek ... You've never risen above that.
And the hypothesis made 'predictions' about som parameters. And it failed with arctic sea ice too ... and other ice too.
You probably take this as confirmation ... but it isn't. In stupo-land maybe, but not in science chek.
And you need to take my word for that again, since you don't know this for yourself, nor will( the more scientifically inclined, with some integrity left on) your side inform you ...
You are afraid of information chek, and probably always have been. And that too is a common treat among you ...
That's twice with the copy-cat crap this page alone, Jonas. Pathetic.
What, pointing out your inability to spell? Why progress beyond that? Why discuss anything substantive with someone who averages 5 glaring errors in every non-one-liner post?
It's YOUR level that's the problem, Jonas. Learn to spell and we'll talk about big-people stuff, mmmkay?
I do! Water. Cold. Ice.
There.
Is there anything you can actually formulate without sounding drunk, Jonas?
"You are afraid of information chek, and probably always have been."
Haven't you ever noticed that, Jonarse? That since day one here you * have * no 'information'. You never have had any.
Stu .. I think you'd be better off commenting typos .. that's you level.
chek .. are you talking about 'no information'!? What a joke!
I've been trying to help (the smarter among you) with the scientific method, or at least som basic concepts there .. but already that was way too high for most of you. You certainly chek ..
I reckon the smarter ones believing in he hypothesis stay away from the core issues ... the less kowledgeable repeat the simpler memes, and the stupid ... well ... we know where they hang around
Leaving the upper percentile as lying deniers just like you , eh Jonarse?
Your self-aggrandising, content-free, chicken nugget 'logic' is at odds with the real world, whereon the one hand you're the spittle-flecked crank with your motley crew of brain-dead, skydragon believing hangers-on, and on the other the IPCC reports are compiled and peer-reviewed by the world's leading experts.
You never had a chance, Jonaarse.
Jonas, I think you'd be better off not making so many typos.
Christ on a crutch you're a moron.
(Oh, and you "helping people with the scientific method"? Shirley, you must be kidding. You can't formulate a 2nd grade physics problem properly.)
Joan, are you a big Ronan Keating fan?
"The hiatus is not the centerpiece,"
OK, now you're agreeing with us: your haitus is nothing like a problem.
"Of course I cn explain in quite some detail what the problem is"
Of course, you can't. You don't even know the words.
Too thick to think.
"You are hadly one to tell me about ‘ineptitude’"
Exactly!
You're a grade-A inept moron NOBODY can teach you anything about being inept! You're an inept MASTER!
:-P
"The data is there, and the pet scare hypthsesis is too … "
Yup, the data is there and your pet scare hypothesis is blaringly obvious.
"And the hypothesis made ‘predictions’ about som parameters. And it failed with arctic sea ice too … and other ice too."
Are you talking about the IPCC reports?
Are you talking about the predicted temperature trends from the IPCC reports?
Are you talking about the fact that the temperature trends from the IPCC report are still tracking well on target?
And are you talking about the IPCC predictions of ice loss which were too conservative and the ice has been melting much much faster than the consensus predicted (though still many models predicted the ice loss catastrophe correctly)?
"I reckon the smarter ones believing in he hypothesis stay away from the core issues "
Well, I don't think JUST the smart ones are doing so since you're staying away from the core issues and you're definitely the bluntest tool in the shed.
chek .. as always, your claims are just things you concoct up in your head. And here, you haven't even stepped up to the plate ... just stupid ramblings only slightly different than Wow's
Stu ..
Have you already (or again) forgotten that you hoped that luminous got his 1:st grade physics right? And that you derailed over imagining different speeds only exisiting in your own little head? And that you claimed having studied six years of physics? And that you (more recently) even hoped to side with Wow ...
Or is this just denial?
:-)
And yes, I have been telling you guys where they go wrong, where they depart from the scientific method, if only on the most simple levels.
And yes, it seems that the vast majority here is completely unfamiliar with how real science works.
In your case, that's not even an accusation or blame. You said you spent six years studying, but it didn't even get you as far as handling the simplest laws of motion, in a simple experiment!? Is six years the time it too you to try passing the tests?
"Have you already (or again) forgotten that you hoped that luminous got his 1:st grade physics right?"
Another made up history from Joan!
That's all the history Joan needs. It's like idiot version of "peril sensitive glasses". Just pretend lol!
Six years Stu ...
And the level on which you are performing here is compareble to Wow, lower than botch-job luminous!?
What a total joke you are
"chek .. as always, your claims are just things you concoct up in your head"
They are, unlike yours, conclusions based on reality.
But like you asserted before, for you, the argument isn't about reality, is it.
ROFL!
Stu .. it seems you once more have support in your (still?) contorted beliefs from Wow ...
He sometimes thinks you were right on the money, other times claims your imaginiations (of different speeds) are as stupid as they actually were, not realizing that that blow landed there right in you egg plastered face ...
But hey, this is Deltoid, these are the typ of characters dwelling here. And many of them even try to convince each other that they are talkin about 'science' ..
The guys whose prime occupation and method is inventing strawmen about reality to protect them from it ..
Six years, Stu, and you need to side with über morons like Wow etc
"Six years Stu … "
Gosh, who would have thought. Another idiot post from our resident failed AI.
What a maroon!
So, Joan, what courses in science to you claim to have done?
General Science in High school?
Wow ...
Stu claims to have studied (taken classes, or at least tryin to pass one) for six years. And failed to do the most elementary things with that claimed 'knowledge'
I am pretty confident too that he first googled 'passive mass' and thereafter claimed this had a distinct and specific meaning in physics. Again in an attempt to appear more knowledgable(*) than he is. (Earlier attempts invovled 'different speeds', 'dependent variables' 'officially introduced in the equations' and 'six years'). Every time he tried to participate in any topic though, the purpose was never the topic, but instead to confirm some imagined fantasy of his (unrealated to reality). Your many many postings serve the same purpose. Completely unrelated to any reality, even more disconnected to any relevant issue here. Only repetition of inane stupidities you'd rather want to cling to than anything of relevance.
As you demonstrate in almost every comment, you can't even read complete sentences, and instead try create nonsens by chopping the words. And nonsense it is. But it's yours.
Chek, Stu, Jeff and many others try the exact same method, some of them on a slightly higher level, but still: The method is to invent an alternate reality and go on about that strawman la-la-land instead.
So you haven't even taken High School General Science, Joan?
Pretty poor education there.
As I said ... strawmen is you only method. And it's a really stupid method too. In case you ever believed it wouldn't show ..
So that's a confirmed "yes", then. Did you even go to high school, then?
Just trying to find out where you did your learning (if any, it doesn't look good for you so far. Not even High School General Science).
As I said ... your 'method' is so idiotic it would take a real idiot to take it seriously. Seriously!
HOW THE PROFITEERS WHO MARKET THERMAGEDDON OFFEND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF FORMAL LOGIC
Guest post by Monckton of Brenchley
LOGIC is the heartbeat of all true learning – the soul of the Classics, the Sciences and Religion. Once everyone studied the Classics, to know that in logic there is a difference between true and false; the Sciences, to discern where it lies; and Religion, to appreciate why it matters. Today, few study all three empires of the mind. Fewer study the ordered beauty of the logic at their heart.
Is Private Fraser’s proposition that “We’re a’ doomed!” logical? I say No. G.K. Chesterton once wrote: “When men have ceased to believe in Christianity, it is not that they will believe in nothing. They will believe in anything.” The belief that Thermageddon will arise from our altering 1/3000th of the atmosphere in a century is in-your-face illogical, rooted in a dozen fallacies marked out by Aristotle as the commonest in human discourse.
“Consensus” is the New Religion’s central fallacy. Arguing blindly from consensus is the head-count fallacy, the argumentum ad populum. Al-Haytham, founder of the scientific method, wrote: “The seeker after truth does not put his faith in any mere consensus. Instead, he checks.”
Two surveys have purported to show 97% of climate scientists supporting the supposed “consensus”. In both, 97% agreed little more than that the world has warmed since 1950. So what? One involved just 79 scientists, hardly a scientific sample size. Neither was selected to eliminate bias. Neither asked whether manmade global warming was at all likely to prove catastrophic – a question expecting the answer “No.”
Claiming that the “consensus” is one of revered experts is the argumentum ad verecundiam, the fallacy of appeal to authority. T.H. Huxley said in 1860, “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
Believers talk of a “consensus of evidence”. Yet evidence cannot hold opinions. Besides, there has been no global warming for 18 years; sea level has risen for eight years at just 1.3 in/century; notwithstanding Sandy, hurricane activity is at its least in the 33-year satellite record; ocean heat content is rising four and a half times more slowly than predicted; global sea-ice extent has changed little; Himalayan glaciers have not lost ice; and the U.N.’s 2005 prediction of 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010 was absurd. The evidence does not support catastrophism.
Believers say: “Only if we include a strong warming effect from CO2 can we explain the past 60 years’ warming. We know of no other reason.” This is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fundamental fallacy of argument from ignorance. Besides, natural variability is reason enough.
They say: “Global warming is accelerating, so we are to blame.” Even if warming were accelerating, this non sequitur is an instance of the argumentum ad causam falsam, the fallacy of arguing from a false cause. They go on to say: “CO2 concentration has risen; warming has occurred; the former caused the latter.” This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc sub-species of the same fallacy.
They say: “What about the cuddly polar bears?” This is the argumentum ad misericordiam, the fallacy of needless pity. There are five times as many polar bears as there were in the 1940s – hardly, as you may think, the profile of a species at imminent threat of extinction. No need to pity the bears, and they are not cuddly.
They say: “We tell the models there will be strong CO2- driven warming. And, yes, the models predict it.” This is the fallacy of arguing in circles, the argumentum ad petitionem principii, where the premise is the conclusion.
They say: “Global warming caused extra-tropical storm Sandy.” This inappropriate argument from the general to the particular is the argumentum a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, the fallacy of accident. Individual extreme events cannot be ascribed to global warming.
They say: “Melting Arctic sea ice is a symptom of global warming.” This unsound argument from the particular to the general is the argumentum a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, the fallacy of converse accident. Arctic sea ice is melting, but the Antarctic has cooled for 30 years and the sea ice there is growing, so the decline in Arctic sea ice does not indicate a global problem.
They say: “Monckton says he’s a member of the House of Lords, but the Clerk says he isn’t, so he’s not credible.” This is the argumentum ad hominem, a shoddy sub- species of ignoratio elenchi, the fundamental red-herring fallacy of ignorance of how a true argument is conducted.
They say: “We don’t care what the truth is. We want more power, tax and regulation. Global warming is our pretext. If you disagree, we will haul you before the International Climate Court.” This is the nastiest of all logical fallacies: the argumentum ad baculum, the argument of force.
These numerous in-your-face illogicalities provoke four questions: Has the Earth warmed as predicted? If not, why not? What if I am wrong? And what if I am right?
Q1. Has the Earth warmed as predicted? In 1990 the IPCC predicted that the world would now be warming at 0.3 Cº/decade, and that by now more than 0.6 Cº warming would have occurred. The outturn was less than half that: just 0.14 Cº/decade and 0.3 Cº in all.
In 2008 leading modellers wrote:
“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the observed warming rate.”
Yet the linear trend on the Hadley/CRU monthly global temperature anomalies for the 18 years 1995-2012 shows no statistically-significant warming, even though the partial pressure of CO2 rose by about a tenth in that time.
The modellers’ own explicit criterion proves their scary predictions exaggerated. Their vaunted “consensus” was wrong. Global warming that was predicted for tomorrow but has not occurred for 18 years until today cannot have caused Sandy or Bopha yesterday, now, can it?
Q2: Why was the “consensus” wrong? Why do the models exaggerate? The climate-sensitivity equation says warming is the product of a forcing and a sensitivity parameter. Three problems: the modellers’ definition of forcing is illogical; their assumptions about the sensitivity parameter are not falsifiable; and their claims that their long-term predictions of doom are reliable are not only empirically disproven but theoretically insupportable.
Modellers define forcing as the net down-minus-up flux of radiation at the tropopause, with surface temperature fixed. Yet forcings change surface temperature. So the definition offends against the fundamental postulate of logic that a proposition and its converse cannot coexist. No surprise, then, that since 1995 the IPCC has had to cut its estimate of the CO2 forcing by 15%. The “consensus” disagrees with itself. Note in passing that the CO2 forcing function is logarithmic: each further molecule causes less warming than those before it. Diminishing returns apply.
Direct warming is little more than 1 Cº per CO2 doubling, well within natural variability. It is not a crisis. So the modellers introduce amplifying or “positive” temperature feedbacks, which, they hope, triple the direct warming from CO2. Yet this dubious hypothesis is not Popper- falsifiable, so it is not logic and not science. Not one of the imagined feedbacks is either empirically measurable or theoretically determinable by any reliable method. As an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, I have justifiably excoriated its net-positive feedbacks as guesswork – uneducated guesswork at that.
For there is a very powerful theoretical reason why the modellers’ guess that feedbacks triple direct warming is erroneous. The closed-loop feedback gain implicit in the IPCC’s climate-sensitivity interval 3.3[2.0, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling falls on the interval 0.62[0.42, 0.74]. However, process engineers building electronic circuits, who invented feedback mathematics, tell us any loop gain much above zero is far too near the singularity – at a loop gain of 1 – in the feedback-amplification function.
At high gain, the geological record would show violent oscillations between extremes of warming and cooling. Yet for 64 million years the Earth’s surface temperature has fluctuated by only 3%, or 8 Cº, either side of the long- run mean. These fluctuations can give us an ice-planet at one moment and a hothouse Earth the next, but they are altogether inconsistent with a loop gain anywhere near as close to the singularity as modellers’ estimates imply.
Surface temperature changes little, for homoeostatic conditions prevail. The atmosphere’s lower bound, the ocean, is a vast heat-sink 1100 times denser than the air: one reason why 3000 bathythermographs deployed in 2006 have detected no significant ocean warming. The atmosphere’s upper bound is outer space, to which any excess heat radiates harmlessly away. Homoeostasis, then, is what we should expect, and it is what we get. Thus the climatic loop gain cannot much exceed zero, so the warming at CO2 doubling will be a harmless 1 Cº.
Yet the overriding difficulty in trying to model the climate is that it behaves as a chaotic object. We can never measure the values of its millions of defining parameters at any chosen moment to a sufficient precision to permit reliable projection of the bifurcations, or Sandy-like departures from an apparently steady state, that are inherent in the evolution of all objects that behave chaotically. Therefore, reliable, very-long-term modelling of future climate states is unattainable a priori.
The IPCC tries to overcome this actually insuperable Lorenz constraint on modelling by estimating climate sensitivity via a probability-density function. Yet PDFs require more, not less, information than simple estimates flanked by error-whiskers, and are still less likely to be reliable. The modellers are guessing. Their guesses have been proven wrong. Yet they continue to demand our acquiescence in an imagined (and imaginary) consensus.
Q3: What if I am wrong? If so, we must travel from physics to economics. Pretend, ad argumentum, that the IPCC’s central estimate of 2.8 Cº warming by 2100 is true, and that Stern was right to say that the cost of failing to prevent warming of that order this century will be about 1.5% of GDP. Then, at the minimum 5% market inter-temporal discount rate, the cost of trying to abate this decade’s predicted warming of 0.15 Cº by typical CO2-mitigation schemes as cost-ineffective as Australia’s carbon tax would be 48 times greater than the cost of later adaptation. At a zero discount rate, the cost of acting now exceeds that of adapting in the future 36 times over.
How so? Australia emits just 1.2% of Man’s CO2, of which Ms. Gillard aims to cut 5% this decade, abating 0.06% of global emissions by 2020. Then CO2 concentration will fall from a predicted 410 μatm to 409.988 μatm. In turn predicted temperature will fall by 0.00006 Cº. But the cost will be $130 billion ($2 quadrillion/Cº). Abating the
0.15 Cº warming predicted for this decade would thus cost $317 trillion, or $45,000/head worldwide, or 59% of global GDP. Mitigation measures inexpensive enough to be affordable will thus be ineffective: measures expensive enough to be effective will be unaffordable. Since the premium vastly exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure. That is a precautionary principle worthy of the name.
Q4: What if I am right? When I am proven right, the Climate Change Department will be swept away; Britain’s annual deficit will fall by a fifth; the bat-blatting, bird- blending windmills that scar our green and pleasant land will go; the world will refocus on real environmental problems like deforestation on land, overfishing at sea and pollution of the air; the U.N.’s ambition to turn itself into a grim, global dictatorship with overriding powers of taxation and economic and environmental intervention will be thwarted; and the aim of science to supplant true religion as the world’s new, dismal, cheerless credo will be deservedly, decisively, definitively defeated.
Any who say “I believe” are not scientists, for true scientists say “I wonder”. We require – nay, we demand – more awe and greater curiosity from our scientists, and less political “correctness” and co-ordinated credulity.
To the global classe politique, the placemen, bureaucrats, academics, scientists, journalists and enviros who have profiteered at our expense by peddling Thermageddon, I say this. The science is in; the truth is out; Al Gore is through; the game is up; and the scare is over.
To those scientists who aim to end the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, I say this. Logic stands implacable in your path. We will never let you have your new Dark Age.
To men of goodwill, lovers of logic, I say this. It is our faculty of reason, the greatest of the soul’s three powers, that marks us out from the beasts and brings us closest in likeness to our Creator, the Lord of Life and Light. We will never let the light of Reason be snuffed out.
Do not go gentle to that last goodnight – Rage, rage against the dying of the light!
I gave up reading at the third lie, but I can easily see why an ignorant klutz like you would buy it hook, line and sinker. You and Monckton deserve each other.
Ah, so you haven't even been to High School, Joan.
OK, were you homeschooled?
"HOW THE PROFITEERS WHO MARKET THERMAGEDDON OFFEND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF FORMAL LOGIC"
Yup, you just did it right there, tampax.
But it's good to see you on the crusade for formal logic to be followed.
Joan, tampax here is warning you: STOP ABUSING LOGIC.
Tell me, pantax, do you believe in the conspiracy of gravity? After all, that's agreed by consensus.
So I take it you all agree that consensus is a fallacy, tampax, right?
"the greatest of the soul’s three powers"
The others being
Bissomy
and
Snood
"Direct warming is little more than 1 Cº per CO2 doubling"
So you think that H2O is not a greenhouse gas? Or do you think that its effect is negligible compared to that of CO2?
Please tell me the moron did not just cut and paste Monckton.
What? You were expecting original work from panties here?
Far too much effort.
By cutnpasting someone else's work, they can avoid defending any of the content (despite agreeing with it) by saying "Well, you have to take that up with so-and-so".
Meaning even less work for them.
Wow .. how manu times have you cut'n'pasted references or whole lists of references you haven't even read?
Any consistency in any of the ... not 'arguments', but ... blathering comments just isn't your thing either, is it?
Flipping heck, not even homeschooled?!?!?!
Kindergarden. Have you ever been to ANY school at all, Joan?
Is Jonarse claiming false equivalence of PantieZ pasting of Monckton's drivel (and let's not forget his slightly earlier skydragons drivel) with actual references?
"how manu times have you cut’n'pasted references or whole lists of references you haven’t even read?"
Several.
So what?
Jonas, so you support that article by Monckton?
What problem? Getting it out of you is like getting blood out of a stone.
You would say that, wouldn't you?
What a hypocrite.
There is no statistically significant change in the rate of global warming, so I have absolutely no idea what your problem is. And that's apparently how you want things to stay.
chek
A very frequent 'argument' here is referencing articles which the person hasn't read.
Another is just making stuff up and accusing others.
It is very obvious that your 'understanding' of the science, or even real science in general is not much better than Stu's or Wow's. And there we are really talking utter ignorance.
From your many (almost every) comments it looks like you have as severe difficulties identifying what is actually claimed as Wow ..
And you too have been talking about references you have not read.
As I said, reality is never really a partof your arguments.
"A very frequent ‘argument’ here is referencing articles which the person hasn’t read."
Where?
"Another is just making stuff up and accusing others."
And you do make stuff up and accuse others.
"And there we are really talking utter ignorance."
Nope. You're making stuff up and accusing others again.
"As I said, reality is never really a partof your arguments."
Yeah.
In REALITY, you've never actually made an argument based on reality.
But you made that up and blamed everyone else.
Remeber, Joan, in REALITY, you asked for the papers used to get the results IPCC AR4 Chapter 9.
If you'd wanted them read out to you, you should have asked.
Chris O'Neill
The hypcisy and meaninhgless comments abound on your side here. Stay away from it if you can manage.
And I ask you again: You do know what a hyothesis is (in science), don't you? And you do know what it is used for and how it is used.
The point is that when testing a hypthesis, it is compared to observations, to see if it successfully can describe and predict them, or not
This should be bleeding obvious to essentially everyone of you, but seemingly isn't.
You are now talking about 'statistical significance' but from the wrong end ("no statistically significant change") and you claim could certainly be challanged, or at least would need quite som additional specification to extract something meaningful.
However, the problem remains. You now argue ( ~kinda) that the hypothesis still has a chance. And yes, I could agree to that (again under the proviso that all claims are propely quantified and specified, which they aren't yet).
However, this is quite a departure from the earlier claims (sometims at the 98% significance level) of how certain they were about the hypthesis and forecasts.
And the quickly dimininishing chance that it still might survive, becomes even more remote as time goes, and othing drastically changes ...
If you are paying attention (and I don't blame you if you don't), your fellow travelser here are already trying to regroup and rephrase the original claims, and you were doing something similar.
As I said, the hypothesis is having more and more trouble remaining one ... and unless ...this will increase rapidly and exponentially.
"The hypcisy and meaninhgless comments abound on your side here."
Yup, more making stuff up and blaming others.
"And I ask you again: You do know what a hyothesis is (in science), don’t you? And you do know what it is used for and how it is used."
Yes and yes.
The trend of the last 16 years includes the predicted AGW warming trend at the 95% confidence limit.
Hehe...as I suspected, my cut'n'paste did get the deltoid zealots a little upset. But what a heck, what else to suspect when someone questions their deep, religious beliefs.
And wow immediately starts with his showpiece, building strawmen de luxe. Hillarious.
Oh, almost forgot, here's the original posting you asked for:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/the-logical-case-against-climate-…
Nope, not upset.
We just wanted to point out that you haven't had an idea yourself, merely parroted what someone else said.
But you only have emotional responses to anything and therefore assume that the non-insane proportion of humanity did the same thing.
And yet again you're posting another cutnpaste which you have no clue about.
And I take it with your newfound zeal against the strawman construction, you'll stop, right?
Oh, that's right. Do what you say, not do what you do.
It's very stalinist of you, but we expect no better.
It shouldn'tbe that surprising that individuals as intellectually equipped as PantieZ would prefer the ravings of liars, fantasists and assorted cranks and convicted and unconvicted paedophiles to the professional work of leading scientists.
Obviously scientists don't give them what they want, whereas the former group do.
Given Joan doesn't even attempt to prove wrong the statement that the actual data for the last 16 years temperature trend includes the figures for climate change the IPCC AR4 predicted, I can't really be bothered with this thread at all.
If Tim doesn't bother just banning the fuckwit, entirely possible to do, or closing this thread for good, I'll look forward to never seeing this thread appear in the recent comments thread except on very calm days, where his idiotic ravings will appear and remain ignored as they deserve.
You quoted Fake Lord Monckton, you moron. There's hardly anyone with less credibility, period -- let alone when it comes to climate science.
Might as well have quoted Big Bird for all the good that did.
I mean, SERIOUSLY?
The man is mentally ill, and you by extension for quoting him. And no, that is not an ad hominem, it is a statement of fact. No sane person has such delusions of grandeur.
"We just wanted to point out that you haven’t had an idea yourself, merely parroted what someone else said." says someone who has problems with long sentences. Hillarious!
I must say, the fanatism among you deltoid zealots is really furious. I can't emagine how it must be to have such deep religious faith.
Psst stu, Lord Monckton si actually a real lord. Just so you know.
Oh, one more thing. Just for wow. He claims the warm Hamburg december weather on AGW (but strangely not the biting, freese your ass off cold in Russia). Anyway, what does Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie have to say about the German (not just Hamburg, wow) klimate the past 15 years? Well, let's see:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Bilder_Dateien/K…
Hm...doesn't seem tlike there's so much AGW going on there at all. Bollocks, ay, wow?
And if you want to read the whole artikle, just google "Der Klimawandel in Deutschland heißt Abkühlung. Seit 15 Jahren gibt es keine steigenden Temperaturen mehr."
For some reason it seems like linking to EIKE isn't possible. Wonder if some moderation kicks in. In that kase, wonder why.
For those unaware, EIKE is the Euro Heartland hangout, and is staffed by exactly the kind of whangbangs that attract dribbling lunatics like PantieZ.
Hahahaha.....you just can't deal with the real world without building strawmen. Hillarious, just plain hillarious! Jeez, what is it called again? Oh, right, denialism. Yes, and deep religious beliefs. Hahaha.....what a pathetic loon.
Heartland hangout, you say? Ok, who then is the European fake-a-e-mail-account-and-write-a-fake-document-because-I-can't-argue-for-my-stance Peter "criminal" Gleick, mr looney toon?
The detrails don't matter PantieZ. What's impoortant is that Heartlands finance sources are drying up quicker than a pool of camel piss in the Sahara in August.
NO WAY! There's a European site that says that there hasn't been cooling in 15 years?
Sweetheart, have you figured out yet why they pick 15-16 years yet?
Stu, PantieZ doesn't 'figure out' things. He's told what to think by the most shameless and obvious front groups imaginable. Of course, he thinks they're speaking to * him *.
The only thing I'm actually curious about at the moment is whether Jonas will have the stones to comment on that Monckton tripe, one way or the other.
Oh, and yes, he is a Lord, as in "can call himself Lord". Bad phrasing on my part. I meant "the clown that has tried to get into Parliament for ages now because he thinks he is entitled to, and gets laughed at over, and over, and over again".
Of course, any Brits are more than welcome to correct me if I got that wrong.
Monckton is a 'lord' in that he holds an inherited title, but he is not a member of the UK legislature whose upper house restricts hereditary peers to a proportion who are elected. Monckton received zero votes.
Being in denial of reality and not just climate science, he blames this state of affairs on 'socialists' and under his breath questions the legitimacy of such parliamentary law.
Like most of his Mittyesque fantasies, huge lawsuits are grandly announced ('top' constitutional lawyer engaged - oooh scary!) and then quietly shrivel up, never to be heard of again.
In short, just the sort of big-talking but insubstantial humbug that impresses double-digit IQ attack dogs like PantieZ.
Speaking of camels and Australia's war on Glomal warming:
http://science.time.com/2011/06/10/australia-killing-camels-for-carbon-…
"NO WAY! There’s a European site that says that there hasn’t been cooling in 15 years?"
You too have problems with reading comprehension, stu? The EIKE paper is about Germany.
And then the whole deltoid bunch starts rambling and building strawmens en masse not even once mention anything at al about anythin of inportance. But hey, it's deltiod, what did you expect? Sciense talks or ad homs? Hillarious you are. Hahaha...
Haha, who would have thought, a perfect sensible article in Pravda.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_wa…
Stu ...
Are you talking about 'stones'!?
I looks once more as if you want to avoid any relevant substance, and derail on fantasies, strawmen and pojections.
Who cares about your opinions, Stu? You can't even formulate your own beliefs properly. When it comes the science (particularly the real version) you are completely lost. You are lost already when it comes to the simples examples taught in elementary physics, like the laws of motion. And then you start making things up: different speeds, dependent variables, gravitation etc. And not even your 'googled knowledge' do get correctly. You are and remain a total joke.
And the physical reality is the last thing you want to involve in your beliefs.
You guys seem patently incapable of understandung even your own 'arguments'. Both the ones you've picked up atacyivist sites, and the contorted 'reasoning' when trying to make some stupid irrelevant point. the reason you guys obsess about Monckton is because you are afraid of dealing with issues that matter. And incapable.
But most obvious is that you are unaware of how devastating you 'arguments' would be if taken seiriously, and applied generally. Meaning in both directions.
But you aren't, you don't and whatever you try aren't arguments. Mostly they are tokens of your belief-system which you cling to ...
And talking about 'stones' Stu ... have you yet come clear reagarding your nonsense claims wrt to simple physics? Or are you really still in denial?
chek ...
The above goes for you too. You comment here quite regularly. But the most on-topic you can manage is that you want people to believe various claims (or what you believe are the claims) made by various (what you seem to believe are) 'authorities'. Ie, you are telling us what you believe, and say that others should believe the same thing. Just demanding, not even trying to argue or convince ..
And those are the rare on-topic parts. Most of the time you are just frothing from the mouth and completely irrelevant..
You know, for some reason i think you have gone through an education better than Stu's or Wow's ... albeit one that isn't useful regarding how the climate system functions and what governs it, make it vary etc
But you seem unable to live up to any education or understanding of science here. (Just as Jeff Harvey)
chek .. I just saw in the open thread that temperatures are rising in spite of them not rising (when measured). But that arctic sea ice and the US northeast weather some how negate this ..
As you you said:
"Like a good wattminded goldfish"
Oh dear, oh dear, this can't be happening, can it?
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.p…
I would say that the AGW coffin by now contains of more iron than wood.
Yes, a kook-paper riddled with errors that 98% of the world's experts laugh at is " the final nail in the coffin of AGW".
The weird thing is that despite all these "final nails", global warming remains a reality.
pentax: Have you figured out yet why all denialists pick 15-16 years?
Jonas: Do you support Monckton's article or not? This is a yes or no question, Jonas. Even you can answer that.
"...errors that 98% of the world’s experts..."
Ah, you mean the survey consisting of 79 so called scientists. By all means, let them laugh. I'll even join. Hahahaha....
But stu, dear. Look at the bigger picture:
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kosmisk-fig-11…
There you have correlation. But of course, the line isn't straight, so in the cAGW church it's a big nono.
Stu
the observed hiatus has now lasted for som 15-16 years. I am pretty certain that's the reason this time span is menioned.
As so often, you don't have a point, but try 'look at somethings else ... '
Same thing with Monckton ... all you ever want to talk about is irrelevant or diversion.
I'm sure you'd made a point (after 1½ years) if you ever had one.
The 'support somebody else'-meme is frewquent on your side. And I did not see you addressing any of Moncktons points, just copying his conditioned politics predictions. And BTW, those I think are wrong ...
So, what was your point little-Stu? And how did you imagine that 'stones' are involved here, please tell!
Jonarse, there is no 'hiatus'. That's why you're too chickenshit to define it.
Yes, for example, there is a "hiatius".
Yes, you're the only one who's allowed to do that.
<blockquote and you claim could certainly be challanged
Go ahead. Make my day.
"Jonarse, there is no ‘hiatus’. That’s why you’re too chickenshit to define it."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha......hillarious!!!
Okay, pentax, let's look at that big picture. Stand back, I will be doing something called "math" now.
The data area of that graph is 300 pixels wide. The scale tells us it references 520,000,000 years of data. So each x-axis pixel represents over 1.7 million years.
Let's take the human influence on climate as starting in 1698 (which is very, very generous). This entire period would be represented in your graph by about 0.00019 pixels.
This is before I start asking questions about where this data comes from, what the latest data point is, or what the ever-loving relevance is. It was this hot 100,000,000 years ago? Awesome, but unless you are a dinosaur or large fern, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
Are you a large fern, pentax?
So you've shown 15 years, and you've shown 520,000,000 years. Why are you not showing 30? 50? 100? 200? 300? Do you really think you are fooling anyone with this tripe?
Oh, even better. I see Jonas is trying science again.
Of course! It has nothing to do with starting with an anomalous year. I mean, it holds up perfectly if you do 10 years, right?
Oh, no, it doesn't. You HAVE to have that late 1990s in there to make crap statistics work so you can "menion" it has lasted "som" time.
I quoted his politics because they ably illustrate that the man is clinically insane. News flash: I also refrain from debating individuals drooling on themselves in the subway.
But you do have a point, Jonas. I should have phrased my question better. Do you support the parts of Monckton's article that address climate?
Answer that question, and I'll address his points.
"“Jonarse, there is no ‘hiatus’. That’s why you’re too chickenshit to define it.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha……hillarious!!!"
I know! And that's not even the best part PantieZ!
Because Jonarse must either say *something* and thereby demonstrate either dishonesty and/or incompetence with statistics, or say *nothing* in the hope it'll go away and be revealed as just another nano-gnat brained denier meme repeater just like you PantieZ!
Hilarious doesn't begin to describe it!
Hoh, hoh, hoh. Pretty certain, yeah right. For those for whom it is not blindingly obvious, that is how far back you can go while still avoiding statistical significance. The choice is a cherry pick of the maximum possible period that lacks statistical significance.
I'm too busy to find it now but potholer pointed out Monckton addressing Monckton's points. If Monckton can't address his own points to his own satisfaction, no-one can.
Jeeez, you're so funny, guys. How does it feel to be the emperor without clothes? Hahahaha.......
You want addressing of Monckton's manouvres? Try this for starters. And once you've got through those, you can start on all the rest: http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos?query=monckton
Sorry abandoning you here in your despair ..
Things just aren't going that well for the climate scare beleivers nowadays. Nothing really seems to work out four you, and the diminishing remaining faithers more and more need to reliy on each other and on those outlets still . Even the Met-office now predicts a hiatus for quite a few more years. Sea levels aren't even close to rising at the 'consensus-rate' and never were accelerating as so many hoped. And only the hard core loonies believe in James Hansen's predictions of five-ten fold increases on average in rate for the remaining century. Hansen being one of the of course ....
Poor things. How much of your identity have you staked on this faith?
:-)
Chris O'Neill
I understand that you rather would like to believe Potholer/Peter Hadfield's assertions about somthing else regarding Monckton, without checking it ..
And that you thing 'statistically' significant' is equivialent to 'still not statistically signifiantly proven wrong' ..
But hey, this is Deltoid .. what do you expect?
[Citation needed]
[Citation needed]
[Citation needed], [Citation needed]
Rate of what, moron? Is it really too much to ask for a single coherent sentence?
So do you stand behind Monckton's assertions, yes or no?
Stu ....
I'd surmise that you 'need' quite a lot more than only 'citations'
For instance, learning to understand a context. Admittedly, you are 'better' than Wow, who usually won't make it through a normal sentence. But not much ...
And yes, we have plenty of examples where you utterly failed to correctly understand even simple language and sentences. Have you forgotten already? Or are still in 'denial'!?
:-)
Oh, and by the way:
“Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a ‘non-voting’ or ‘honorary’ member.”
And
h_ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
h_ttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/mike-steketees-respon…
h_ttp://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2010/0409/20100409_103701_Monckton_Mystery_Solved.pdf
h_ttp://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/monckton-jumps-shark-gets-eaten.html
h_ttp://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/monckton-lies-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-the-continuing-saga-of-a-practicer-of-fiction/
h_ttp://www.politicususa.com/christopher-monckton-man-lies-credentials-question…
h_ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/monckton-lies-to-ap-denie_b_3922…
h_ttp://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html
An obvious and stupid liar with delusions of grandeur. Hey Jonas, any relation?
And I see that Jeff Harvey, who desperately wants to believe in James Hanses loony-rates (because he is a so well recognized and respected 'scientist') still tries the very same method of barking irrelevant feelings at others hoping his rants somehow strengthen whatever it is he believes in. And as usual, without even understanding what the topic is.
The most amazing thing is that he publicly displays his utter incompetence at almost everything he addresses. He tells us that he is 'well respected' among his peers. But we have only his word for that, and although there are loonies in most professions, I doubt that there are circles where they are really in majority ...
Your scare-quotes are completely nonsensical. And by providing no citations for your assertions, you are conceding that you were, again, making things up.
Context? Are you drunk again? You make several moronic assertions that I asked you to provide citations for. You failed to provide those. You fail at grasping the concept of context, which is irrelevant -- in this context. You fail to answer a simple yes-or-no question.
You fail.
Again with the inappropriate scare-quotes. You're a moron.
<blockquote.who usually won’t make it through a normal sentence.</blockquote.
You don't write any. Most of your sentences are irrelevant to the topic being discussed, show you don't understand what people are saying to you or are so poorly spelled or omit so many key words that they become useless.
Like the one I was responding to. I asked for specific clarification on a sentence that was obviously omitting key words, and you are too stupid to understand the question or see where you failed.
Seriously, between that level of nonsense and failing to address anything being said, why don't you just save everybody a lot of time and post nothing but "Narf"? Same amount of content.
Right, the many instances where I pointed out the silly things you say and defend? Where everyone understands except you? So you still believe everyone else is stupid and crazy, except you?
What the hell is it with the quotes, jackwagon? Did you just hit the Quotes chapter in English for Dummies? If so, go read it again -- you're failing at it pretty hard.
Do you stand behind Monckton's assertions on climate change, yes or no?
Eight links, Wow!?
Did you have to got that far? Hasn't this been claimed at Deltoid already, and must therefor be true?
Your obsession with Monckton's persona and many completely irrelevant thinsg is noted and quite cute. Maybe it helps you to get through the day. Somehow ...
And the hiatus is still the same problem as when I (here) first mentioned it. It only has lasted another year. And gotten worse, of course.
The ignorant response from quite a few (not only you) amounts nowadays to: 'Well, it is not entirely disproven yet' and 'It still could be true, and only obscured by something huge we don't know yet what it is' ...
Well. Both are at least theoretically possible. But not consistent with what has been claimed and trumpeted with the highest confidence by you all for years ...
But hey, this is Deltoid ... nobody expects you to be consistent about anything really. Consisten is just a word found sometimes in your copied and rehashed 'arguments' ... and then it's a good word. Isn't it Wow?
;-)
Jonas:
Zoot.
Stu ..
Have you ever contemplated that there is a simpler (and closer to home) explanation for why you don't understand something that is addressed here?
Do I really have to spell this out, stu?
You imagined that somebody argued pushing a box with the hand, but at different speeds between hand/box!
You did that! I am fully serious! You believed this and still defend that idiocy! And you imagined/believed that in spite of the opposite being spelt out for you! You actually did. And stuck with that nonsense-idiocy! All by yourself! And in full vision ..
:-)
Well, you probably then too believe that 'moron' is a smart word for you to use and look smarter. Amazingly, quite a few here and on your side harbour similar beliefs and try them all the time.
You know, I even think that I have explained what 'rate' of Hansen I was referring to before. To you, when you asked.
But then, your postings never are about the topic Stu ..as so many other bystanders, you are merely hoping that throwing dirt (or nonsense) somehow detracts from reality. And that's never a good method for anything
So the problem is that people can't imagine things?
That you can't think of anyone who has an imagination?
That it is wrong to imagine what someone means when they are unclear?
I'm not Wow, idiot. So yes, you're posting drunk again.
Wait, now you are complaining that I provide too much evidence? Ah, now I see what your problem with the IPCC AR4 attribution section is. I mean, it's got way too many references, right? Did they have to go that far?
Did you follow any of the links?
Do you dispute any of the evidence provided at the links?
Do you dispute that Monckton is a habitual and pathological liar?
Do you support Monckton's assertions on climate change in his guest post at WUWT that was referenced earlier (I believe by pentax)?
He could have a Dragonball Z persona for all I care -- it's just that pomposity combined with continuing lying (for example, about what the IPCC actually says) is annoying and permanently discredits him.
Totally. Hey, Jonas, have you figured out yet why it's a 16-year hiatus? Not 5, not 10, not 20, not 30? 16 years, on the dot. Doesn't that strike you as oddly and extremely specific?
Have you figured out yet why this would be? Maybe you and pentax can pool resources on this one.
A hiatus got worse? What the hell? You have no concept of language, do you. Jonas, just because you put a few words you like together does not mean you're making sense.
[Citation needed]
[Citation needed]
The strawman creation guild is going to sue you Jonas.
[Citation needed]
Until you can provided citations for all your previous assertions, this is yet another asinine assertion. Since we both know you can't provide citations for it, it is also an obvious and stupid lie. Monckton-grade, really.
No, "consisten" is not a word found in our arguments. We, unlike you, can spell.
You can't be bothered to address the correct person. You can't be bothered to follow links we give you. You can't be bothered to follow references the IPCC gives you. You actively resist getting informed yet insist you are smarter than everyone and know more than everyone.
The only reason anyone talks to you anymore is that your pathology is occasionally amusing.
Wow
Of course Stu is allowed to imagining nutty things, or believing things just because he wants to believe them. No problem there ..
He just completely derailed after (possibly, initially?) just a stupid misreading of the words. He is still derailed and laments over 'consisten' and hopes that it helps him somehow.
And your nonsense strawman implications/questions are duly noted. Those are what you regularly manage to accomplish. Irrelevant nonsense .. no surprise there!
Stu ...
You are (as usual) completely without any substance. None. Only the empty stupid rantings we have seen from the start.
Your comment about 'too many references for that AR4 claim' is particularly stupid! Really really really stupid, Stu!
I'm not even going to point out why this is so stupid. Even you (who allegedly spent six years not managing to understand even the simplest physics) should be able to figure out why ...
If you really are as stupid as your many arguments Stu I feel really sorry for you, and even more about those forced to be around and cope with you. But I hope you are a bit smarter than what you manage to show here ..
Stu, Joan has been hysterically screaming for well over a year that you have asked someone what they meant.
That is the long and short of it.
Joan is all hysterical because you asked someone what they meant.
Nothing more.
Their continued bitching has two purposes:
1) to wind you up
2) to get airtime
"He just completely derailed after (possibly, initially?) just a stupid misreading of the words."
So asking "what did you mean" is completely derailing?
Wow ... counterfactual assertions ... that's your spiel
Do you even know what your purpose is with that?
You mean things that dozens of us here agree upon, versus you? It still makes sense to you that we are all crazy and you are sane?
...must...resist...obvious...pun...
Hell, no, I won't.
Jonas, you are not in a position to "spell things out" to anybody. You cannot spell.
[Cliff Notes]
I reacted to GSW saying "The hand must move faster also". Bringing up the hand speed implies the velocity can be different. If it cannot, it should not be mentioned because "hand pushing box" means "hand always moves at the same speed at the box". Therefore, I asked why it was brought up, and here we are over a year later with one clown defending the original statement and every other sentient creature in the known universe face-palming at him in unison.
But sure, Jonas. I made it up. I misunderstood an English sentence, whereas you got it right.
A likely scenario.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05YfP_8UsU
Sweetheart, nothing was "spelt" out to me. Nor "spelled", for that matter. Not by anyone, especially you. You cannot spell.
You're right! I totally should have made my "nonsense-idiocy" (facepalm) stealthier!
(You do realize you're not helping your case here, don't you?)
Wait.
What?
"Moron" is a smart word I use to make myself look smarter?
Are you serial?
Did you have to look it up, Jonas?
We "try our beliefs"?
Again, Jonas, save some time. Just say "Narf" and save us all some time.
Awesome! So you'll be able to point me to the comment where you actually added the missing words to that nonsensical sentence?
Please do. I'm waiting.
Really?
A denier (pentax) brings up a posting by Monckton.
We start slagging Monckton because he is a proven liar.
You push back, without any arguments.
I provide you with a starter set of links that prove Monckton is a liar.
You say I gave to too many links.
And all through this, you refuse to even answer whether or not you stand by the assertions on climate change Monckton made in that post. For weeks now. A simple yes or no question on the thing closest to the topic brought up in months, and you refuse to answer it.
And here you are, not answering the question, accusing me of not sticking to the topic.
That is trolling, Jonas. And bad trolling at that. Answer the damned question and then we can talk about who is avoiding the topic. While you're at it, provide clarification on that "rate" sentence, as requested multiple times now.
Jonas, are you clairvoyant? How do you know that "bystanders" on this thread hope any such thing? Did they say so on this thread? Hate to tell you Jonas, but that would make them "participants", not "bystanders". In an Internet comment tread, everyone but the blog owner is by definition unaware of who the "bystanders" (lurkers, for sane people) are.
So again, you are trying to say something vapid but lack the language skills to make even that argument properly. Yet here you are saying that your interpretation of what was said about "the hand has to move faster also" is the only correct one.
You have again, in a completely seperate incident, proven you have insufficient mastery of the English language to define even the most basic of concepts, yet insist on talking physics with professional scientists.
This is one of the many levels where you are glaringly incompetent, the level I have been addressing from the start, and purposefully so. We obviously overestimated you from the get-go, assuming you had the mental faculties and intellectual toolkit to discuss things like IPCC attribution. However, you lack so many basic tools (spelling, vocabulary, reading comprehension) that by now it is obvious that addressing your arguments on that level is absolute folly. Whether through a learning disability, mental illness or willful disassociation, you are unable to grasp what is being discussed.
As adjudicated by...
Oh, never mind.
So you realize you were addressing the wrong person.
You refuse to correct yourself.
You refuse to even acknowledge that you messed up. Completely expected, of course. You refuse to acknowledge any of your many failings. You refuse even now to even check your spelling.
Children do that. Do you even know how adults communicate, Jonas?
This coming from someone who crows about an imagined "hiatus" "getting worse". It's official, again: IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
"The hand has to move faster also." We've been over this
I'll stop bagging on your pathetic spelling errors as soon as you stop making pathetic spelling errors. This has been explained to you. This is easy for you to avoid. You don't care enough to spend 10 minutes to not look like a doofus yet demand people stop calling you on writing like a doofus.
The fault, at this point, is entirely yours. Learn how to spell, download free software to check your spelling, hire someone who can spell to check your spittle -- nobody cares how you do it Jonas... just realize that with every glaring error you make yourself look more stubborn and dense.
I know you really like that "duly noted" thing, Jonas. I used that construct on you, it struck your pompous nature, and you have been unable to restrain yourself from using it as much as humanly possible. It's still very, very pathetic.
Anyway.
The definition of a rhetorical strawman is arguing against something not said. You made assertions about what was said to you and argued against that. I asked for citations, you refused to provide any. You were committing the stawman fallacy, repeatedly, and now assert (again, without citation) that that is "nonsense".
This specific response of yours is so prima facie and transparently idiotic that I don't think there's even an officially defined fallacy for it, although I am open to being corrected on that.
When I hit "Submit Comment", the number of outstanding open questions posed to you that you have so far refused to answer will go from 2 to 6. They are all relevant, and we all know why you don't want to answer them -- it'll make you look like a kook, and a dumb one at that.
Answer the questions I posed to you over the past half-dozen comments or so or concede you have no interest in actually addressing the topic.
Really? You've conceded that you don't like it when people give you too many references. You've conceded that there are a lot of references in the AR4 attribution section. You've conceded that you haven't read any of them.
What logical conclusion, pray tell, do you expect people to draw in the face of those facts?
Ah, so back to "Narf". God forbid you actually address the topic, right?
We know you're envious of and hateful towards the education of others. No need to expose your insecurities this blatantly all over again Jonas, it does not help your case.
Zoot.
Oh dear me. Just for fun, I looked up
Right! Except no, not at all.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/resolving-met-office-confusion.html
"The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.
However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years."
"...changes in ocean surface temperatures in some parts of the world over the past year are understood to have made a key contribution to the difference between the 2011 and 2012 forecasts, but other factors will also have played a role."
(Should've asked the first time)
So what is it Jonas?
A) Did you not understand what the Met was saying
B) Did I not understand what the Met was saying
C) Is the Met lying
D) Are you lying
Yes/No seems to be too complicated for you, but let's see if you can do multiple choice.
Jonas still thinks 16 years without "statistically significant" warming means there is a hiatus in warming.
But hey that's Jonas.
BTW, if it hasn't already been mentioned, a global warming confidence interval calculator is here.
Hey, deltoid zealots! Here's a very pedagogic pic for you about lines and trends. I especially like the sentence: "Linear trends are worthless for statistically inferring cause-and-effect; but getting a match between wiggles in two datasets is much less likely to be due to random chance."
Read and wipe, deltoidistas.
http://s7.postimage.org/69qd0llcr/intermediate.gif
..."The most amazing thing is that he publicly displays his utter incompetence at almost everything he addresses"
.. says our resident pseudo-intellecutal Dunning-Krugerite non-scientist with no scientific publications in his life or any recognition in any field of endeavor. Its funny how our psychotic Swede can make such a statement since, as we all know, he has no scientific competence in ANY field. I've written a lot about ecology and environmental science on Deltoid, which is my area of professional expertise, as it turns out. So what Mr. Ego appears to be saying is that inn his uneducated opinion my comments are wrong there too. Here's a guy who can't tell a hippopotamus from a grasshopper and yet he's not afraid to making sweeping generalizations. Like other deluded fruitcakes, he also doesn't hesitate to impugn and smear scientists who have years of experience. Now, let's see, who is more respected amongst members of the scientific community: James Hansen or Jonas Nincompoop. GOSH! That's a hard one. If there were a vote amongst climate scientists, what would the result be - 99.9999999999999999999% Hansen, 0.0000000000000000001% Jonas.
So you better be careful there Jonas - you already look like a complete schmuck to 99% of those posting on Deltoid. Such asinine remarks won't increase your fan club beyond the 1 or 2 equally daft idiots who support you now.
I'll be even more blunt: in a scientific venue you wouldn't reach up to my ankles.
Stu nails it here in describing Jonas:
"We know you’re envious of and hateful towards the education of others. No need to expose your insecurities this blatantly all over again Jonas, it does not help your case"
If there is anything that has been made clear by Jonas on this thread, it is this. He loathes academics, probably because he isn't one. Note his comments towards me, John Mashey, James Hansen, Michael Mann and other scientists with who he disagrees. Its the politics of envy.
"So you better be careful there Jonas – you already look like a complete schmuck to 99% of those posting on Deltoid."
And that of course says more about the weirdos who populate this pseudoscience blog than of Jonas. Owngoal jeffie, owngoal.
"getting a match between wiggles in two datasets is much less likely to be due to random chance"
Seriously? "Match between wiggles"?
Hmm. Who'd be dumb enough to say something like that.
Roy Spencer? This Roy Spencer?
h_ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-…
"In Andrew Dessler's view, "[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants." [8]
In response to the flawed peer review that allowed the publication of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing stepped down."
Any more quality unsourced claptrap you care to cut and paste, pentax?
I see you have no concept of irony.
Directly on to the ad hom,stu? So, what about ordinary arguments? Depleted? Hahaha...
Yes, Stu, how dare you ad-hominate about "weirdos"?
As you say, still no concept of irony.
The irony, vince, is that in the real world, you know, the one that exists outside this tiny, dark little corner of the internet, ad homs is commonly recognized as being the technique for argumenting for those without any arguments (or liars, your choise). So you see, the faceplanting is all yours, Ironically, isn't it?
Who posted this, Pentax:
And where is the ad-hominem in Stu's post? I can't see it.
Typically with deniers, we find their literacy level is as low as their intellect, and they have a nasty habit of employing words whose meanings they are not familiar with.
Calling you an idiot is abuse, not ad-hominem, and it seems like factual and justifiable abuse at that. You are an idiot.
Guys, guys, let's let pentax actually point out where, specifically, he feels I committed an ad hominem fallacy first. If he can I'll openly apologize for it.
"And that of course says more about the weirdos who populate this pseudoscience blog than of Jonas. Owngoal jeffie, owngoal"
In your dreams, Pentup. In your dreams. Here's a question for you and your hero:
Who is a better qualified scientist?
A James Hansen
B Jonas Nobody
Not that hard to answer. Give it a shot. I dare you. I ask because Jonas has pretty well spent this entire thread claiming to know everything there is about science, routinely smearing and deriding those he doesn't like, including people who have bothered to get off their butts, get the relevant education and qualifications, and do research.
Arrogance doesn't begin to describe Jonas and his views, which for some strange reason are way out from the mainstream. Jonas is an example of a storm in a teacup. Big man in one little corner of the blogosphere. Can make all kinds of unsubstantiated arguments with no recourse. Can forever belittle Mann, Hansen, Santer, Trenberth and others, safely tucked away from broader scrutiny.
I have challenged him dozens of times to go into a broader arena - a conference and a workshop - or to write a paper for a peer-reviwed journal if he thinks he is some brilliant wannabe scientist bravely debunking those he regularly attacks here.
But of course he won't . He won't even respond to this post because he can't. He's trapped here by his own ego and by the fact he knows that his so-called wisdom would be blown to smithereens if he threw his hat in the ring. So the Jonas thread on Deltoid is where he will stay, along with a few denier blogs. Again, big man in a teacup with his loony sidekicks (you included) for ego massaging.
Jeff ...
As I've said many times. You claim to be a scientist, ans still in almost every comment you post, you make claims and assertions which have only the inside of your skull, ie your feverish imaginiations as source. You fantisize 'facts' to supporrt your completely idiotic narrative.
And you can't argue one single topic here on the merits, and quite frankly most of the time my impression is you dom't even have the slightest clue what issues are on the table. It's just brainless irrational ranting and screaming. And has been for 1½ year now ..
And you call yourself a scientist? Well Jeff Harvey ... in real science you have absolutely nothing to bring to the table.
Just look here. Aapart from not being able to even grasp what is discussed here, you now cheer one other commenter who has shown how absolutely incompetent he is regarding a discipline he claims to have studied for six years!
A nitwit who (in spite of his claim) was unable to se any of the many complete disasters luminous made, and then tried to pile up to cover for his inital fiascos.
Stu didn't nail one thing. He is completely incompetent wrt to anything worth discussing here. Almost everything he tris is diversion and getting away from any substance.
No Jeff, you nailed yourself again. First by once again making your fantasy claims, and then by cheering for yet another incompetent crank just because he also is as incapable as you are ...
And still Jeff. I told you were Hansen and Mann went wrong. In Hansens case it's sp bleeding obious that ony a complete stupid moron or blind-faith climate-scare-cultist can fail to see it: His promises of (now) 10-fold increase in sea level rise rate in the coming decades.
By the way: Your claims about percentage among climate scientists once more are abslute utter idiotic hogwash .. and you are probably once more completely incompetent to understand why ...
Because you are no scientist, Jeff. You just write total nonsense agian and again hoping that it becomes true that way ...
What and idiot!
And now my comment in my own thread is 'awaiting moderation' .. what a joke
But hey, this is Deltoid
:-)
"Who is a better qualified scientist?"
About qualified, massaging data, exaggerate and lying isn't by any way proper science, so hansen does definitely not qualify as a scientist, less still a qualified one. Pseudoscientist is a more accurate term for hansen.
So Jonas is the qualified one, scientist or not.
"Big man in one little corner of the blogosphere"
Finaly you got something right, jeffie. Jonas' knowledge about physics and climate by far exceeds any of your deltoidistas. And that completely without the need to wave a CV in others face. Yes, he's a big man. And deltoid is a little, dark corner of the internet, although of course you zealots think otherwise. Two rights in one sentence, jeffie. Impressive.
stu
"Guys, guys, let’s let pentax actually point out where, specifically, he feels I committed an ad hominem fallacy first. If he can I’ll openly apologize for it."
I don't expect you to have enough brains to figure that one out.
Sigh. Jonas still can't answer my simple question.
IS HE A MORE QUALIFIED SCIENTIST THAN JAMES HANSEN.
Pentup writes a bit of verbal diarrhea, in keeping with the fact he's an utter twerp who thinks that AGW is some global left-wing conspiracy. He seems to think he has enough acumen to evaluate the qualifications of scientists. Much like Jonas. Again, straight from the Dunning-Kruger handbook. You won't ever find even deniers who are scientists doing this. Christy, Lindzen, Spence, Pielke, love em' or loathe em, they wouldn't go down this road, because they know that whatever thin street cred they have would be shot to pieces.
But that doesn't stop the assorted ugly mob of non-scientists on blogs doing it. They do it because they are anonymous and can get away with it. Again, this lot pound their chests and act like silverbacks in little corners of the blogosphere, but if they were to step out into the big, bad academic world they'd been eaten up and sapt out in a nanosecond.
Jonas rambles on: "And you call yourself a scientist? Well Jeff Harvey … in real science you have absolutely nothing to bring to the table"
Says the man with no scientific background in any field, of endeavor. Many of us here has asked Jonas Nobody a millions times what qualifications he 'brings to the table' . Aside from often telling us how smart he is and how much he knows more than anybody else, no qualifications are produced. Again, I reiterate: I actually do science. My science is sent out for peer-review. I attend conferences and workshops and give lectures at universities. I review manuscripts and grant proposals. I am on editorial boards and scientific committees. I have the letters after my name. Jonas has none of those things. Just some vacuous rants on a blog. END OF STORY.
Wanna know why that is?
BECAUSE HE AIN'T GOT ANY!!!!!!!!
On top of this, he has his little daft science-devoid wart, Pentup, as his main defender. Of course if there was a democratic vote amongst those here, we know who'd they vote off in the dunce category first and second. No need to say who.
Essentially, in the end my advice to people here is not to reply any more to our hapless Swedish idiots. Jonas craves attention. He feeds off it, because it bloats his ego. He's down to one regular supporter here now, an equally nutty guy with an equally nutty monicker.
Jonas loathes academics. That's clear. He refuses to answer basic questions, such as what his day job is, or why he refuses to take his self-professed brilliance to the big world of academia. If Pentup is correct and Jonas is a repressed scholar, who knows far more than Mann, Hansen, Trenberth et al., its a tragedy that his academic brilliance is not being exposed to the big world.
Forget Hansen! Jonas N will change the course of science! So why oh why is Jonas N a completely anonymous schmuck? Is it because he's shy of publicity? Or because he doesn't think the world is ready for his brilliance?
Perhaps there's another reason - he knows his garbage would be shot down almost immediately. Also, people would ask why a self-taught scholar had no formal qualifications in the field of climate science or, indeed, any science. Kinda tricky, that one.
Every so often I stumble into this sad, twisted thread and read more of Jonas' idiotic barbs. Most of the time I let them pass, but foolishly I respond to some of them. If we all ignore him, and his wart, then my hope is that they will fade away into the obscurity from which they emerged.
Jeff ...
I told you exactly where Hansen went completely wrong! And yes, I have that acumen. And you don't! You have no method at all nvigating anything wrt to real sceince. None!
Shouting idiot-rants about Dunning Kruger, denialists and fantasizing your own 'facts' is what you do. Totally clueless? If Hansen says 1 to 5 m raise this centure, it must be true becaues of his long CV!? What a totally idiotic and moronic argument!
But that's all you have. And you've tried it for 1½ half not even knowing what you are defending. Here you side with Stu, another completely inept six failed years of studied physics claimee ... Who can't read and understand even the simplest things. Desperately you hope that Stu 'nailed' it when expressing ignorant wet fantasies similar to yours ..
You of course are too dumb to assess anything even remotely related to real science. You are too dumb to evaluate even the simplest quantified claims. You write utter hoqwash and even pretend to speak for 99.9999999999999999999% of the scientific community!
Of course you don't! You don't speak for any real science at all here. Do you even know what sample size you'd need to make such an idiotic claim, Jeff?
And yes Jeff, you have tried waving that CV many times. And still here, when discussing any little detail or fact or law of physics, or how to interpret numbers, what observations actually say and what they can support, what can be said with what confidence (or lack thereof) etc .. Everytime, you chicken out and start ranting your idiocy.
And you know what Jeff? I think your behavior accurately reflects your skills. Here you have none whatsoever ... None!
And you make up your own facts in so blatant desperation ... that only a complete lunatic can think what he spouts are real facts he knows.
And if you are not, you are knowingly asserting statements you know nothing about. Which makes you a liar!
And neither lunatics or liars have any place in real science and how it is conducted.
Ah Jeff ..
So why are you so desperat trying to put me down with the most stupid non-arguments available?
First you say Hansen (and Mann Trenberth etc) are the finest scientists there are with long CVs that make them appear amlost saintlike ..
And now you are saying we should forget Hansen (or the others) and what claims they make about the future? We should not ask them how they arrive at their sometimes spectacular 'conclusions'!?
We shoulc not check if their numbers and data make any sense and what physics are required to make their predictions to happen?
You are claiming (meaning: *hoping without knowing') that what I say here is garbage!?
How would you know Jeff? You can't even get my stance, position or statments correct. Not even after me repeatedly pointing out that what you attack is not what I said. You hardly ever go near anything relevant and real I say. So how can you claim it's garbage?
I know: Because it origins from the inside of your head. You make things up. You kame garbage up, and you do it all the time!
Garbage is your only method here Jeff ... And your product. And you'v been spouting it for 1½ years
Oh Jeff, another little (ie big) peculiarity about your failures here ..
You often say that you speak for many others, for scientists, and even for 'the scientific community' and make claims about what they would do or say or respond to what I am saying etc
Of course you don't. You don't speak for any real scientist, that's for sure. And you don't speak for any community either. And you wouldn't know how things I say about the matter here would be responded to. Because you don't know what I say. Because you don't know the matter or what it is. And because you neither understand what others are arguing wrt the same matter. You just don't know ...
And you are of course completely wrong in your assertions. Many scientists say and argue the exact same things I do. You just wouldn't know since you don't know what I actually say.
But that was not the main point. Instead you want to take that 'argumentum ad populum'-fallacy. Even to this place, and conduct a 'head count' among the commenters here. Which is so laughable it defies belief ..
Firstly because this is a heavily moderated alarmist site, and secondly, because the ones you want to count in as support for your garbage beliefs are signatures like:
Stu, Wow, Lotharson, sidecup, bill, ianam, Michael, Bernard, Vince, chek and the like ...
And remember: The higher your 'majority' head count would be, the more cranks you would need to include there together with you.
And just look at that bunch, and the kind of 'arguments' they bring here. Utter garbage the whole time. Most are as lousy as you at addressing anything relevant. All would just rather like to shout insults and shout me down (avoiding any issue altogheter). And the very few who occasionally actually try to adress some real issues reveal how little substance and knowledge there ever was behind their beliefs ... just look at Stu or luminous ...
But you think that more of them, of those here is an argument for your beliefs!? Really?
How did you come to think anything as stupid? Pleaste tell! How do you think sealevel rates will quadruple or worse, because those ranters rant the same rants as you?
Buh-bywe Jonas. Nice to leave you ranting at thin air. I certainly don't ever expect to see or hear from you again. Deltoid is it.
You are one sad, pathetic loser....
Well Jeff ...
You spent 1½ year ranting absolute ignorant garbage here ... trying to convince whom about what? Do you even know?
One final point, Jonas: I am brave and honest enough to admit that I am not a climate scientist and on that basis to defer to those who have the proper training, expertise and qualifications. This is what having a proper scientific education does. It tells us what we know and where we should be cautious. You exhibit no hesitation in claiming to be an expert in an area you've never formally studied. You aren't afraid to attack Hansen as an anonymous entity on a little blog, but you don't venture into academic circles. Why is that?
Its because you are a rank coward. As I said yesterday, big man in microscopic teacup. You bleat on about how you've proven Hansen is wrong here, but why not in a scientific journal? Why not in a public venue? But you won't do that. If you did, then you know what would happen. You'd either be ignored for being a rookie, or else your views would be shot down.
As I said, here you stay. As the loser you are and will always be.
Sad but true.
"You spent 1½ year ranting absolute ignorant garbage here"
Says you. And one or two of your ignorant hangers on. Am I supposed to believe YOU?
Good grief man, get real. If my science is so flawed then try telling that to the journals that publish my research and to the scientists who cite it. Last year (2012) my papers were cited over 500 times on the Web of Science. Now who do I believe; this massive recognition of what I do or some unpublished, untrained libertarian Swede with a chip on his shoulder? Gee, that's a toughie...
Jeff
Well Jeff ... your 'proper scientific education' has not cured you from making up garbage and presenting them as 'facts' in almost every comment.
As you say, such an eduction: "tells us what we know and where we should be cautious" or at least it should.
You Jeff have shown absolutely no restraint here making the stupidest claims imaginable. And that's what they have been, imagined (by you) and stupid.
And there is no need for me to confront Hansen. Nobody (except possibly cranks like yourself) take Hansen's claims about future sea levels seriously.
And contrary to your oft repeated nutty rants have I ever said that I know fields far better than anybody else. However, I know far mor than you about this matter (which is no measure at all) and I know far more than required to spot nutty claims, poor science, poor logic, and vastly overstated conclusions.
It must be immensly difficult for your fragile ego to handle that all your idiotic projections about me are so far off the target that you now are a total joke. That you repeat your idiotic claims about me hoping that would make them true after the fourhundred:th repetition.
And no they don't Jeff.
And yes Jeff, I know what will happen if I bring what I say to a scientific debate. You don't. You don't even know what it is I am saying.
You again claim that your assertions ar the truth. And you are as wrong as always. Your method doesn't work. And repeating it just makes you look more stupid ... Not my problem though.
And it seems that you still are completely unaware of what is happening in the real world, and the real science about the climate and what makes it move ..
But how could you. You claim superiority over me, and can't even read what I say correctly ...
Jeff ... 'your science' is completely irrelevant to what and how the climate changes on earth .. .Completely irrelevant!
You angry CV-shaking does not answer any relevant question about that.
But it's good of you that you spell it out (even twice) that your navigation is about 'believing' and 'whom to believe'
Do you remember that this is one of the very first things I told you guys here: That you are taking things on faith!? In particular the most prominent IPCC AR4 claim?
Maybe you still 'believe' ... and think that such claims don't even need to be stated, much less demonstrated beyond any questionsmarks in the published literature .. But that's were we differ:
I ask to see the data. Or in this case just the publications ...
And when I do, the whole Deltoid blog 'goes Jeffie' for 1½ years ...
Let me be vary clear Jeff:
You have spent 1½ years producing absolute garbage (in almost every comment) towards me.
There might have been som grains of sanity a few times, some crumbs of substance wrt tthe actual issues ... but the utter gabage, the attempted childish insults, the irrelevant CV-waving and contest pissing are larger by three orders of magnitude (possibly more, but I'm trying to be modest here)
And why you feel compelled to write as much (garbage) as you do here, I don't know. I noticed though that you try the exact same spiel with others too. And you completely lose the arguement there too. Your garbage are not arguments. No matter how desperatly you want them to be.
"And there is no need for me to confront Hansen. Nobody (except possibly cranks like yourself) take Hansen’s claims about future sea levels seriously"
Sorry Jonas. Gotta stop you there. Strawman. Calling people cranks on the basis of comments on a blog does not cut ice. Nobody takes that seriously.
Second fallacious point: "However, I know far mor than you about this matter (which is no measure at all) and I know far more than required to spot nutty claims, poor science, poor logic, and vastly overstated conclusions"
Meaningless drivel. Based entirely on your own views. And as I have said, I don't care what you think. If you were such a talented guy your wisdom wouldn't be confined to a small blog would it? You are clearly very frustrated. You loathe academics. That's clear. That's because you think you're one. Or are a wannabe. But to become a respected scholar is something you can't do in 5 minutes on a blog. I've asked you what your background is over and over again. You refuse to say. Which means that aren't an academic. Except in your own mind.
Stupid point # 3: "It must be immensly difficult for your fragile ego "
My ego isn't fragile, Jonas. You certainly cannot even put a speck on it. My scientific career speaks for itself. It has been successful thus far, and my plant-insect research is heavily cited in the peer-reviewed literature. It would certainly take a lot more than an anally retentive Swede to make me feel that my science is not up to scratch. Unlike you, I stick close to my field (well, you don't exactly have a field do you? Amateur all the way). I don't stick my neck out and try to give the impression of being a genius in fields I have not studied. But I have spoken with a lot of climate scientists and have yet to meet one who denies the human fingerprint on the current warming.
Finally this howler: "I ask to see the data. Or in this case just the publications"
Pretty blatant lie, there. Dozens of publications have been linked here and you've pretty well ignored every one of them. Its clear that you don't understand them, and even when you do occasionally respond, its usually just some dismissive remark aimed to give the impression that you are better than the authors who wrote the studies and did the research. Its so easy to do that in a blog; if you were to crawl out from under the slimy rock you call home you'd then have to defend your put-downs more publicly. And then your rank ignorance would be exposed fully.
Finally, with the spittle flying out of your twisted mouth, try and learn to write and spell better. Your grammar is atrocious.
=)
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Josh-om-MET.jpg
”This is an egregious example of sloppy science, slipshod science, bad science. … This is what happens when the race for fame, government funding and political advantage collide with science—the validity of the science is destroyed”
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/science-gets-stratosphere-wrong
So do so, Jeff.
Tim's not willing to cut this shithead off, we must.
Jeff!?
Again only nonsense.
1) Hansen made claims about future sea levels ... which if taken seriously require a tenfold increase in rising rate. For the next 87 years. On average. Nutty! No real scientist takes that seriously. Period!
2) Yes, I know far more about what I am talking about than you. Period! My education is far better than yours. And suited for the purpose.
4) Nonsense! Nobody has provided any references even making that claim. Are you lying trhough your teeth now Jeff?
3) Yes, you are, and have been barking at me for 1½ year now. Very angrily. Demanding that I 'recognize' your 'grandiose stature' as a scientist. I don't. What you bring to the table here is nutty garbage (and worse)
And you still hope to put me down with your infantile insult-attempts. Why is this so important to you? When you steer away from every on-topic issue and detail?
Jeff ...
One of the 'participants' of your head-count support is signature 'Wow'. Congratulations! You belong in that company!
I would say that almost all of the ones who believe that insult-hurling is an argument are nothing but trolls here. Absolutely no connection to any topic.
You are a troll too. Claiming that a tenfold increase in sea level rising rate should be 'accepted' because Hansen is such a 'respected scientist' .. right there showing that you have absolutely no understanding of what real science is. None!
You say that your ego isn't fragile, and still you have spent 1½ years here trying to tell yourself that you are 'better than me' by waving that CV and by makeing the stupidest most dishonest claims you can come up with.
In my experience, people with a good self esteem don't invent lies about others to bolster their own ... That's what you expect from the schoolyard bully in elemetary school.
"by makeing the stupidest most dishonest claims you can come up with. "
The claims are neither dishonest nor stupid.
You ARE a nobody, and you have nothing (except your fuckwit posse and their even more fuckwitted links).
Enjoy.
chek ...
And you have never even been close to anything here. Your comments have been even more stupid than Jeff's. And dishonest too, I'm quite certain.
"My education is far better than yours. And suited for the purpose"
Prove it.
Prove it!?
You already proved it, Jeff. I would never write idiotic claims like you. For instance:
You probably don't even know why this is idiotic. Or how idiotic!
Another extremely obvious illustration is that I have to (over and over again) exlain to you even the simpler parts of what is required by the scientific method. (And my impression still is that you don't even understand those parts. Since you are unable of violating them essentially in every one of your comments. But logic just isn't your thing, Jeff. Is it?)
Correction:
"Since you are unable [to refrain from] violating them essentially in every one of your comments"
"what is required by the scientific method".
The "scientific method" shows that Jeff is a frequently published, oft-cited, respected scientist in his field with an international reputation.
You, Jonarse, on the other hand are merely an idiot blog poster with no data and no case apart from your own cluelessness but also a certain amount of animal cunning attempting to camouflage the fact that your only appeal is feral morons like PantieZ et al.
Me:
pentax:
So you admit that you cannot, in fact, point out where I committed an ad hominem fallacy. So you admit that you are a liar.
Thank you, and please don't be offended if people laugh at you even more from here on out -- you are now a proven lying douche, and sane creatures tend to dismiss those.
Jonas:
Jeff:
Jonas:
So no, no proof. Again. Jeff has already proven his scientific credentials, and said he is not a climate scientist. I have admitted I have nothing but a high-school physics education. We have been totally forthcoming about our education and its limits.
Jonas, so far, has not even deigned to inform us of a single detail of his education. All he has shown is that he cannot spell, cannot formulate a basic physics problem and is less original than your average Lenny Kravitz album.
But sure, he's the "real" scientist. He's smarter than all of us. All we need to do is take his word for it.
pentax: Your last few quotes have been:
- Monckton
- Spencer
- A cartoon drawn by someone too dense to understand a simple Met report
- A random blog douche still not understanding that the NOAA data was validated by an independent Koch-founded study
pentax, sweetheart, is it that you don't understand what these links actually say... or is it that you really hope people are dumber than you and don't check up on them?
Stu,
Yes Jeff proved that all his training and his aéducation is inferior when trying to argue his many idiotic claims.
And it is eve easier with you.
If you really had studied your alleged six years of physics, you would have realized that every single thing I told luminous was correct and to the point. If you had studied those six years and also mastered what you had studied, you would have realizes luminous' many violations of simple physics already before I pointed them out.
Well according to your own account you did neither. And insted went on lamenting about somthing else (I don't need to remind you of, but gladly will)
So, in case you really studied the absolute first simplebasics of physics, you are doubly aware of that I am correct. And you are aware of that Jeff claiming 'you nailed it' once more revealed that he neither had the slightest clue.
On the other hand, if you aren't even aware of your (and luminous) failures after the fact, those alleged six years have been entirely wasted. Again proving my point:
And Jeff cluelessly siding with luminous, wow and you, confirming it once again (wrt Jeff)
Shorter Jonarse: Empty, meaningless, (misspelled) words conveyiing nothing and adding nothing..
And how would you know (-nothing) chek?
chek .. unfortunately and for some stupid reason, my reply to your earlier comment is 'held up in moderation' ... I don't know why, and I don't even think there is purpose behind it. But essentially I was mocking you (and Jeff) for your ignorant comments about 'the scientific method'. You guys really have no clue what science is about .. Real science, that is
"You guys really have no clue what science is about .. Real science, that is".
The "real science" that goes on only within your own head is not "real science" Jonarse. It's only your own safe, la-la fantasy world. That's why your existence is defined by your meaningless, inconsequentia blog sniping, not by anything you've actually done. Nor can do.
chek .. you are wrong already on the very first syllable. I have been asking for the references to that AR4 claim which for many is at the core of your belief system. And absolutely none of you have seen any such science. Much less being able to understand any such science.
And Ive told you this for 1½ years.And you still seem to be in denial ...
"I don’t expect you to have enough brains to figure that one out.
So you admit that you cannot, in fact, point out where I committed an ad hominem fallacy. "
Funny when someone claiming to write and understand the English language actually don´t. Hillarious!
Jonas is so smart, I'm amazed the UN hasn't hired Black Helicopters to knock him off before he gives the game away....
As for Pentax, the man who has no idea what "ad hominem" means, he has just posted yet another meaningless post that has no obvious connection to anything that has happened before.
Maybe he forgot to take his pills this morning?
Hahaha, you're so funny, Windy. You too prove my point.
* doesn't
* Hilarious
And still unable to point to an actual fallacy.
Oh, and by the way, Jonas, if all you're going to do is repeat "I did point out where luminous is wrong", "you didn't show me any references I like", "you might be scientists but I know real science, which I define as science I like", "I am still so insecure about my education I cannot shut up about yours but I'll never tell you about mine" and "I feel the need to prove I cannot spell over and over"...
...why just not say "Narf"?
Anyway, Jonas: zoot.
Stu
I don't think I can hep you with your real problem. At least part of that still seems to be denial.
But as so often you are only scoring owngoals. You (and many others) have been saying 'zoot' and 'narf' and not much more. Essentially without any relevant connection to anything.
Only very few have even touched upon some real issues
You can.
So could Tim.
Fuck off.
And please realise that I have no care whatsoever what you think about this, nor any of you other denier idiots.
You can help everyone by getting the fuck out of here.
About your presscious "peer reviewed" "science".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/01/09/a-barrage-of-legal-th…
Wow .. Why would you even think that anybody at all cares the least about what you think or all the nonsense you spout here?
You could, at any time, answer the many relevant questions that have been posed to you. You don't, and you won't. Do you really think that you're fooling anyone?
You truly are a case study in lack of self-awareness. You're bleating on deludedly in a thread you were confined to for being vapid and obnoxious, and you feel you need to tell others how little anyone cares about what they say?
Sad, sad, sad.
Also: are you congenitally unable to google anything?
Oh, wait! Pentax has cut-and-pasted something again! Let's see...
Oh wow! Scientists commit fraud? Stop the presses! Scientists don't like being called frauds by an anonymous website? I'm going to faint!
Here, Jonas, let me help you out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o620WWho-o
"Oh wow! Scientists commit fraud? Stop the presses!"
I know, that' fraud is a common thing among you cAGW mongers.
"Scientists don’t like being called frauds by an anonymous website?"
Well, it doesn't matter the least who points at the cheating "scientist", anonymous or not. And I certanely understand why one choose to do so anonymous, Green idiots aren't exactly known to be unviolent.
But my point by copypasting is simply that a tsunami is coming, a tsunami with sensible, realistic and true scientific science. All you alarmists are in for a tough time.
"I know, that’ fraud is a common thing among you cAGW mongers."
Yeah, you keep bringing it here.
It's getting a frigging lothlorien in here ferchrissakes.
"a tsunami with sensible, realistic and true scientific science"
And you've never let that tsunami change your mind.
No, that's your own myth, easily shown by you not having any evidence to back up your assertion.
No, again your confusing your fantasies with reality. It's your fellow Scandinavian right-wing nutters like Anders Breivik that go off on mass-murder sprees, fed on a diet of conspiraloon newsletters from the likes of Monckton.
Hoh yus! One of these days, you'll see.....
You really are a complete moron aren't you.
Stu
I case you hadn't noticed. You, Jeff, and quite a few more have spent 1½ years arguing amonst themselves and with their/your fantasy strawmen of why what i point out wrt to various things should be deemed(!) wrong.
Based ont the absolutely mosts fantastic
Sorry ... posted prematurely:
Based ont the absolutely most fantastic nonsense arguments.
Most of yiu have been desperate to get away from any topic, and instead shouted the most inane sstupidities about your own imaginataions.
Blindly guessing and desperately hoping thinsg you had no clue at all about.
Jeff for instance (in his hoplessly inconsistent way) seemed at one point to be aware of and accept that that (in)famous AR4 claim wasn't really to be taken literatlly or based on real science ..
But when I reminded him of this, he again brought up the most stupid invented reason for why it should be believed(!) after all ... and why the the opposite should be believed (based on his usual fantasies about me).
You can't make these things up, Stu.
This is the level on which you manage to operate.
Self awareness, Stu ... you after all your silly attempts ... do you even believe your own drivel?
I hadn't. Oh, by the way, a sentence like that works a lot better when followed by a comma.
No, none of the sane people here have argued amonst themselves. Heck, we haven't even argued amongst ourselves. And the only reason anyone bothers with you at all anymore is SIWOTI and/or cheap entertainment.
Half a dozen direct, pertinent questions posed to you, and you whine about "what i point out wrt to various things should be deemed(!) wrong".
That single clause is the new nexus of vague passive-aggressive idiom-raping abuse of the English language.
I especially love the "(!)". It's really telling. It means that you were sufficiently worked up and convinced of your righteousness while writing that polenta of an argument that you felt the emphasis would truly drive your point home.
I dare everyone here to read the following out loud, to themselves, three times, right now: "what i point out wrt to various things should be deemed(!) wrong"
Either you will reach a new state of Zen, or your head will hurt. I just tried, and not only did my head start hurting... my child laughed at me. YMMV.
Hurblefurblewhatta?
Oh, I'm sorry. By that logic, most of your comments are. But hey, even you noticed that was a little too incoherent, so please, do go on...
So wait, you went back to continue that dreck, changed "mosts" into "most", but still left "ont" as perfectly valid?
Yowza.
It must be wonderful to be so right without ever having to pose a single coherent argument. It must always be sunny in Jonas land, where you can be right forever, no matter who challenges you... because the people that do are stupid, not real, not scientists, or not real scientists. It must be wonderful to be so much smarter and such a better scientisty person than everyone else.
Who's "yiu"?
Anyway.
Obvious and stupid lie. You have been avoiding at least five very topical questions for close to a week.
Why do you think you can get away with this? Most people have better reading comprehension than you Jonas, and can instantly peg this for the claptrap it is.
There must be a denialist requirement to be unable to spell properly. That, I understand.
What I don't understand is where a grown-up individual can sit down and rag on someone else's comprehension of a language, or that person's reading comprehension in general, and make multiple errors while doing it. It's baffling. I mean, pentax tried and scored two spelling errors in a single sentence -- I'll even forgive the poor idiom due to ESL considerations --; now here comes the head clown to top him with two blatant spelling errors in a single clause.
And yes, we'll even grant him the poor idiom and complete lack of coherence. At least he didn't leave out words this time.
Seems like there's a 2 spelling error minimum for denialists frothing about other people being stupid. Let's see if that holds.
Narf. Narf, narf, narf. Jonas, you know what it sounds like when you say something like this after every single argument you have ever put forth has been refuted, and you pretend really hard that they have not been?
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.
Address the questions posed to you, or concede you have no point.
Do you even realize how pathetic that sounds? I thought you didn't care about what anyone here thought, and here you are attempting to latch on to Jeff's authority (which you dispute) to try to make a point.
WRITE A PAPER PROVING US ALL WRONG, JONAS. I DOUBLE-DOG DARE YOU.
Of course, you don't dare. If you had any real conviction behind your whining fetid excretions you would have taken Bernard's bet last year. Not only a liar, but a cowardly one unwilling to put his money where his mouth is.
Also, I think Jeff might actually enjoy beer. (Now scroll back, Jonas, and please tell me you actually understood that pun).
Do you even read what you write? That particular paragraph is completely void of content. Well, obviously, judging from the (OOH LOOK AT THE IRONY I AM SUPER CEREAL LET ME THROW IN THE EXCLAMATION MARK HARK HARK) conviction you added, there was a lot of emotional investment.
No content, though.
Nope, you can't. I mean, what pathetic little douche would sit there, obviously avoiding half a dozen relevant questions and throw out random insults that show nothing but projection, a raging inferiority complex, dyslexia and dyspraxia?
Oh, wait. That would be you.
No, you idiotic, self-absorbed, childish liar, this is the level I am choosing to engage you on. You are unable to grasp anything written on an adult level. You are unable to express your thoughts clearly on any level at all. I have been making fun of you for these failings for over a year now, and you still don't grasp that that is all I am doing.
What the hell? That's two hard non-sequiturs in a single sentence.
Wait. Let's just get serious here for a minute.
It's not even funny anymore. Jonas, please, please please do the following:
- Write these words down on a piece of paper: Broca, Wernicke
- Run, don't walk to the nearest hospital
- Demand an fMRI
- Hand the aforementioned piece of paper to the neurologist
Look, I can make fun of asinine personality disorders all I want, and even needle those with developmental disorders that are jerks... but Jonas, you literally have symptoms of actual brain damage. Please get yourself checked out.
"No, that’s your own myth, easily shown by you not having any evidence to back up your assertion.
No, again your confusing your fantasies with reality."
Oh right, coming from your filthy mouth makes it true. Sorry, forgot that.
" It’s your fellow Scandinavian right-wing nutters like Anders Breivik that go off on mass-murder sprees, fed on a diet of conspiraloon newsletters from the likes of Monckton."
Breivik? You claim to find a connection between him and klimate sceptics? What an utterly joke you are. That two cells between your ears is really working hard making the most looney things up. What an completely joke you are. Pathetic.
He's right.
Breivik was a rational and intelligent human being, compared with the kind of nutters who get their information from crank blogs like Anthony Watts' WUWT or Jo Nova's crank blog.