Someone here was predicting that the ice sheet would grow more this year. That is how this and all planets work. There is a point when the sun starts to put positive energy back into the system, I'll call the energy balance skunk line. The planet keeps on cooling because it's lost some latent or retained heat.Uranus keeps on cooling for years after the winter energy balance skunk line. This may tell you something about energy retention or belly button lint, I'm never quite sure here.
Greenman3610 (the person posting this video) is a FRAUD. Just do some homework on this FRAUD, it is easy enough with Google. Should take about an hour or so for anyone interested.
which of the specific statements in this video do you take issue with? Rather than just name calling, I have interviewed real scientists, -- who have given me positive feedback on my work, btw - and I report what they say.
In a discussion, what you do is rebut them, if you can, by citing your own sources. If you have none, then perhaps you should do some homework, as I have.
Why cherry-pick only 2000 years of sea level data? Why not look at ALL the data so we can see the rise/fall of sea levels over MILLIONS of years. 2000 years is NOTHING... We know the reason, it would undercut the alarmist cause. Oh and 550 mya when CO2 levels were 20x our pre-industrial levels and yet....positive feedback didn't happen. Ooops!!! Sceptics win again...
also, google "origin and evolution of earth" for a volume by the national academy on earth history over 5 billion or so years. free to read online, try chapter 3, "A Habitable Planet"
@nlpjohn Thank you for not addressing 550 mya where 20x pre-industrial CO2 levels FAILED to produce the white unicorn called "positive feedback". Oooops....there goes the AGW hypothesis...right down in the toilet... Oh wait...you'll say the sun was cooler back then. Hmmm... Was the sun 20x cooler back then?
wow. I didn't realize you were that stupid. Sorry. I'll ratchet things down. There are other things that effect climate. They are just not happening now. Watch a scientist explain this to a congress critter who is almost as stupid as you are
@greenman3610 So many excuses you alarmists have. And don't forget all 11 major climate models show that heat radiating into space from earth should be DECREASING due to the white unicorn called positive feedback and YET 20 years of ERBE satellite data shows MORE heat escaping into outer space. Ooops! Another torpedo size hole in the AGW hypothesis. And please don't adress this w/ another UNPROVEN hypothesis....
Why then can you walk out, any tide state, to a castle in Sweden I believe when it was only assessable by boat in the 1600s. Either the sea has lowered or land risen by over 3 meters. If the land is rising, that water that is displaced has to go somewhere as water seeks it's own level. Tobago is sinking becasue all the asphalt and heavy oil being pulled from under it. Subsidence does not equal sea level rise. Tuvalu was done in by phosphate mining.
@Robbob9933 Let's remember that "moist adiabat" tell us if the temp data is correct, then in the tropics, the upper troposphere should have a "hot spot". All the AGW models say this hot spot should exist yet it can't be found. So either the temp data for the troposphere is bad or.....the surface data is tainted. Skeptics have long attack the surface land temp data as both incompetant and dishonest. surfacestations/org.
"Greenman chose that name for himself. I've told him several times that when he cites his source, then I will quit using the "I'macluelessblowhard" name he chose for himself."
So ok lets use your logic here. If you comment again that means you want to be called a mr.moronic.rapist. Now if you comment that means that you choose that name. Do you think what I just did was childish and very stupid? I think it was. Now do you see why that statement of yours is so shockingly ridiculous?
Oh and you just pointed out that I was right. You said your self it didn't make any difference and are just looking for any error to pound on him for. Like I said you're being dishonest.
So now it's dishonest to agree w/you? You're a HOOT & demonstrating that you're just as clueless as greenman. I remember you from your ridiculous posts in the past. You obviously haven't learned anything since then.
Not sure why you’d point people to RealClimate page (tinyurl com/75lgtsz). It says what I said: Hansen got about 2/3 of the trend from 1988 to 2010 so, given he used 4.2 C for sensitivity, it should be about 2.8.
There was an excellent debate on the award-winning Canadian news show, the Agenda. It featured two prominent climate scientists, Richard Lindzen and Hadi Dowlatabadi. In the debate they carefully (using good science) debunk the claims of the Global Warming/Climate Change movement. Nobody who watches this debate can reasonably continue to believe in global warming. You can use Google to find it.
Also how is it that the climate has been "stable" over the last 10,000 years when that period includes the Holocene Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, & Little Ice Age, eras w/higher & lower temps than the last century? Again, Willis contradicts himself. He is merely spouting CAGW dogmas, NOT science. Someone at NASA ought to tell him to put a cork in his piehole.
And you spread his propaganda. Missing those obvious errors, you've demonstrated that you're not the sharpest tool in the kitchen either.
climate has been stable within certain parameters, in that we have been in an interglacial with no dramatic swings such as those of the preceding 100,000 years. I think that's clear enough.
@greenman3610 "climate has been stable within certain parameters"
OK, then that mean's there's no alarm about some illusionary emerging hockey stick because we are within that stability. I say illusionary b/c there have been numerous ups & downs 10X larger than the recent decades & they never materialized into either upward or downward hockey sticks. It's just natural variability buddy. Give up the alarmism & accept reality.
Now, about the source of your 'In the 70s' quote ... ???
the only things we KNOW about those 100,000 years are
1) it wasnt AGW
2) we dont know BOO about any solar factors during that period
3) there was more ice
4) there was LESS water vapor in the air (yep, meaning that there was LESS of the one greenhouse gas that the "climate" truthers like to dismiss first as being "not well mixed")
5) our CURRENT Inter-Glacial-Period is a bigger anomaly than all AGW factors, COMBINED
@thesparitan I'm not spamming. I'm just posting facts and data that expose Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610's propaganda for what it is.
I also expose his saying one thing ("You see, I ALWAYS cite a source when I make a statement. That way people won't think I'm a clueless blowhard"), while he does another(he's never given the source for his 'denier' quote at his 'In the 70's' crock).
So I'm just doing a public service here so people don't get duped by his deceptive propaganda.
@RealOldOne2 So what he didn't give a source for the denier quote, it doesn't effect the over point he was making. And yes you are spamming the channel and it isn't helping. If you want to be effective make a couple videos showing were he is wrong and debunking his claims. Otherwise commenting on every video and getting into month long arguments isn't going to get you any were and it looks more like harassment then being informative.
Like I pointed out he boastfully claimed that he ALWAYS cites a source. No he doesn't. So that make him a clueless blowhard by his own definition.
But you're correct that it didn't make any difference, because I TOTALLY debunked that crock & the historical revisionism contained therein anyway.Ridiculous propaganda claims there like looking at charts & seeing temp data that hadn't even happened yet.
@RealOldOne2 He doesn't need to give sources for every possible claim or statement he has ever made, that is a silly demand and I think shows that you are being dishonest here.
@thesparitan "that is a silly demand and I think shows that you are being dishonest here"
Greenman is the one who boasted "You see, I ALWAYS cite a source when I make a statement. That way people won't think I'm a clueless blowhard."
I was just taking him up on his word to do what he said he "ALWAYS" did. It's neither silly nor dishonest to expect someone to do what they say they ALWAYS do.
What IS dishonest is to NOT do what you say you ALWAYS do. So we've seen that gm is dishonest
@RealOldOne2 And further, if you are so sincere about your desire for intellectual honestly then why use childish insults like Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610?
@thesparitan "childish insults like Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610"
Greenman chose that name for himself. I've told him several times that when he cites his source, then I will quit using the "I'macluelessblowhard" name he chose for himself.
@RealOldOne2 Wow, did you really just write that. I am speechless. Umm, ok well ok I guess that proves my point. I cannot imagine anything more childish. and I say you are dishonest because you say you want to inform people but in reality you just want to insult and harass. You have no interest in real debate, you just want to be a bully. Typical of so many deniers. You have lost credibility. I wish we could just have a rational polite discussion. Its very sad you are like this.
@thesparitan Rational, polite discussion? Remember we tried that on the temp leads carbon crock, but you wouldn't answer any questions & began the "morons like this" insults.
Now you start this discussion accusing me of spamming. I answer your accusation & then you accuse me of being dishonest, childish insults. You're doing the insulting.
"You have lost credibility" That's a laugh. You can quit Gleicking now.
If you have a science question, ask. Otherwise you can stop the harassing
@RealOldOne2 I am not insulting you, but you are acting childish by altering someones name and then blaming them for it, which is very stupid to do. I am pointing your behavior, and like I said I think we can assume that you are here for no other reason then to cause problems and insult people.
"Notuuh, you did it first" or "your name is greenman more like mriamabigidiot" This kind of stuff shows us where you are coming from. I can write you off now because of that.
@RealOldOne2 Why would I ask a science question to someone that only is here to be antagonistic, insulting and harassing?
When you want to stop pettifogging the issues, insulting someone by altering there name(Last time I seen that I was in 4th grade BTW) and being generally dishonest, then I would be happy to talk science with you, but until then I don't see the point, do you?
And since you only report facts, how about correcting Willis' error @2:00 too. There he says "In fact, sea level was VERY constant over our stable period of climate over most of the last 10,000 years"
VERY constant? Look at the graph. Ups & downs of a few METERS! How is that stable, when he just claimed that "we're beginning to get this emerging picture of a sea level hockey stick" because of a 0.2 meter change in the last 150 years? I call bull crap on that one! He's contradicts HIMSELF!
Hey Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610, you say you only report facts, so how about correcting Josh Willis' factual ERROR in this video. @1:08 he says "So we've had about 2000 years that we have decent MEASUREMENTS"
BZZZZ. Wrong, factual error. The earliest sea level measurements were in the 18th century. Everything before that is either models or reconstructions, neither of which are sea level MEASUREMENTS!
So insert a text box there that says 'actually not MEASUREMENTS, but reconstructions & models'
@RealOldOne2 The other reason tide guages are more indicative of real SLR is that they measure sea level relative to the land where the measurements take place. THAT'S what matters concerning sea level. Current SLR is nothing to be concerned with. Point to the skeptics.
@smartalek65 "relative to the land" Exactly. And b/c even the satellite measured SL was decelerating, they juiced it up be "correcting" their data for GIA. They aren't even measuring sea level anymore. They're reporting a meaningless virtual sea level which is HIGHER than the real actual sea level. They're really measuring sea volume. Who cares if the floor of the ocean is dropping to lessen actual rise in sea level. Like you say, it where the sea meets the land that is important.
@smartalek65 Hey smart, did you see that Gavin over at RC just agreed w/you & I on Hansen's 1988 forecast that the trend in actual temps have been only ~half of even Scen B? Think there's any chance that iceman & Rob will finally admit that they were wrong? Probably not, they're too deep in denial of anything against their CAGW dogmas.
MrI'macluelessblowhard3610, you reveal yourself to be a serial deceiver.
I clearly stated "JUST agreed" referring to RC's most recent post 3 days ago, & you say "THAT post" & then DECEPTIVELY link to a RC post over FOUR years old!
Have you no shame?
The recent RC post I referred to showed Hansen's forecast to be ~TWICE what actual temp change has been. But in one sense RC's 4yr old statement was correct; off by a factor of 2 IS as close as the models get.
"BTW, I find it very revealing that 'citizen auditors' like us actually "DO the science" & check the claims, but the 'scientists' like Ben Santer(gm's crock) & Grant Foster, aka Tamino(Oh Pleeze) DON'T."
//rolls eyes (beware of acute Dunning-Kruger poisoning)
Let's wait and see how iceman answers that. In the meantime, I've called out greenman on his hypocrisy on his newest vid, where he interviews a climate scientist. He solicits from her a line of remarks about intimidation, people calling her a "liar," yet he sees no hypocrisy in calling we who disagree with his apocalypse insulting slits like "deniers."
@RealOldOne2 Yes, it's revealing, but I actually find it disturbing. It seems Feynman's work on scientific rigor is ignored by many disciplines, especially climatology. When empirical data conflicts with the hypothesis, advocating scientists all too often try to excuse the discrepancy, rather than consider whether or not the hypothesis is wrong, either in whole or in part.
Exactly. Most recent example: last weeks paper 'explaining' Trenberth's missing heat. Raise the uncertainty band so it's within the uncertainty, so it COULD be correct. Of course they ignore the implications of this that Pielke pointed out, ie. their models may be wrong.
It's disgusting how they corrupt true science in attempt to keep the the money flowing.
@smartalek65 Ice will probably yell 'conspiracy', but you only need to follow the money. Grants, salary, carbon tax, C&T, wealth transfer.
In a rare moment of honesty, UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said:"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy ... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore" NZZ Online, 2010
@smartalek65 As you pointed out to iceman, his claim that sea level rise is accelerating is scientifically groundless. His claim is undoubtedly based on comparing different measuring methods (recent satellite vs historic tide gauges).
Since there is wide y-t-y & decadal variability in sea level, tide gauges are the only measurements that can scientifically determine if SL is accelerating. And the tide gauge record shows that sea level rise is NOT accelerating, it is DECELERATING!
CONT'D means that CAGW fails yet another empirical scientific test. It confirms Schwartz (2010) finding that we're "missing heat."
By the way, the reason you don't get a notification that I've answered you is that I answer via my mobile device most often. My stepsons monopolize my home pc.
Perhaps that's why I didn't get mails for Rob's replies. He said he made posts from his iPhone.
BTW, I find it very revealing that 'citizen auditors' like us actually "DO the science" & check the claims, but the 'scientists' like Ben Santer(gm's crock) & Grant Foster, aka Tamino(Oh Pleeze) DON'T.
Seems like they care more about following an agenda ("the cause") rather than following the DATA, which can DISRUPT the "cause" not the climate!
@541iceman ROO2 already showed you the trends from the totals, I'll just back it up with more exact numbers. Hansen's "A" scenario is a rise from 0.3C in 1988 to a 1.1C point in 2010. That's .8C rise in temp. You want a smoothed 3-year average? You've got it. Using satellite data from 1987, 1988, and 1989, you get a 36-month average temp of -.05C; using satellite data from 2009, 2010, and 2011, we get a 36-month average of 2.5C, for a rise .3C. That's an unimpressive rise comparison. It CONT'D
@robhoneycutt You said:"Look, no one is claiming that climate is "delicately balanced on the knife edge of some fictitious tipping point of no return." "
Well, Rob, James 'deathtrain' Hansen said:"we are on the precipice of climate system TIPPING POINTS beyond which there is NO REDEMPTION"
@541iceman Reading my last post, I checked Hansen et al's scenario "a," and his graph places 2010 at 0.8C above the 1988 mark. The rise noted in the satellite data is 0.39C above the 1988 mark. Hansen's projection is off by at least a factor of 2 from the real world.
@smartalek65 Scenario "A" is *not* the correct comparison with Hansen et al. (1988) predictions. Scen. A is exponential growth, B is linear, C falls after ~2000. Hansen et al. also applied the scalings to trace gases that doubled the total anthro RF relative to CO2 only in 1988 (Fig. 2).
But actual trace gas (non CO2) emissions didn't grow; CFCs basically disappeared as a source, and CH4 growth was small. So, anthro GHG RF followed something more like Scen. B. from 1988 to 2010.
@RealOldOne2 In the meantime since my last post, I checked Hansen et al again, and we should be checking scenario "a," not "b," I stand corrected. Section 4.1 informs us scenario "a" assumes co2 will increase at rates similar to the 1970's and 80's. 1970-1988, co2 increased from 326 ppmv to 354 ppmv, a rise of 1.56 ppmv/yr. 1988-2010 was from 354 ppmv to 389 ppmv, an increase of 1.72 ppmv/yr. Scenario "a" (business as usual) is the one that fits that description.
Kudos to you for admitting that. You & I admit our mistakes. We'll see if ice does.
Re:GHG emissions growth, Hansen has used Global Fossil Fuel Emissions data to define this:"Our approach is to use the historical CO2 emissions curve"(tons of C emitted) & "If rather than being constant, CO2 emissions increase exponentially at 1.5%/year ... This growth rate is perhaps the largest plausible one", Hansen etal 2001)
@541iceman I see RealOldOne2 already adressed the points. 1988 was (in figure 2 of Hansen et al, as well) at .3C above the zero horizontal mark, and 2010's projection was at 1.0C. That's .7C above the 1988 mark, correct? So will you kindly admit to your mistake here?
@541iceman If we used the averaged 2011 data, the rise is an even less remarkable .13 C. Hansen's "b" scenario for 2011 was a slight increase from 2010, to .72 C above the 1988 level. The global average temp from the satellite MSU data showed a .15 C level above the same zero mark for the 1988 temps, which was .02 above that mark. For 2011, Hansen was off by a factor of more than 4. Sorry, ice, that's not even in the ballpark.
@smartalek65 No: Hansen's Scenario B prediction was 0.7 C *above the 1951-1980 baseline average* (Hansen et al., 1988, JGR, Fig. 3 top). That is, his prediction for 2010 is 0.4 C above 1988. So again, look at tinyurl com/84xc22o. In 1988 the anomaly is at ~0.2-0.25. In 2010, it's at 0.55-0.6, i.e., up by 0.35.
And yes, I smooth to 3 years. Don't cherry-pick La Nina to make your case. Again, looking at Hansen et al 1988, you see his models give order 0.1 C bumps in interannual.
@541iceman No iceman, you're wrong: Hansen's Scenario B prediction taken from Fig.3(a) was >1.0°C above the 1951-1980 baseline average.
The 0°C delta T level IS the 1951-1980 baseline. Section 5.1 of his paper states:"In Figure 3a the temperature range 0.5°C-1.0°C above the 1951-1980 climatology is noted as an estimate of peak global temperatures in the current and previous interglacial periods"
The 0.7°C you claim is *above the 1988 actual level*, not *above the 1951-1980 baseline*!
Hansen's Fig.3(a) does NOT smooth to 3 years, so you're comparing apples to oranges w/data from your 37 month mean chart. That's not a legitimate comparison.
"Don't cherry-pick La Nina"
That means YOU can't cherry-pick 2010 El Niño year as the endpoint to make YOUR case. Play by the same rules
Once again, Hansen's scenario A is the one we should be comparing to actual T's. It was for "business as usual" GHG forcing.
@541iceman In addition to kindly admitting that Hansen's 2010 projection was for >1.0°C as smartalek65 has politely asked you to do, would you also kindly admit that we should be comparing Hansen's Scenario A to the actual temperatures, not Scenario B, since Scenario A is the one that has so far followed a course closest to real-world GHG climate forcing?
Since these are indisputable FACTS, I trust you will make these admissions & not deny that you were mistaken.
@RealOldOne2 See my previous post to smart. Scen. B. is closer to reality. Hansen et al. (1988) included growth of trace GHGs including CFCs. In 1988, trace GHGs contributed about the same as CO2. However, since 1988, trace GHG contribution *declined* drastically, and CO2 has increase *linearly*, not exponentially, i.e., more like Scen. B.
@541iceman No ice, that doesn't fly. CO2 overwhelms all those other more minor GHGs(most of which have been ~ constant or slightly increasing). So the fact that CO2 has increased at 1.95%/yr, vs the 1.5%/yr of scen.A means that the higher than scen.A forecast CO2 growth much more than compensates for the fact that those more minor GHGs haven't grown at 1.5%/yr.
Scenario B forecast DECREASING GHG growth rates. That has NOT been the case.
@RealOldOne2 "Don't smooth": Well, Hansen smoothed to annual averages, so some smoothing is reasonable. 3 years reduces ENSO signals. Hansen also puts in random volcanic events, so comparing specific years with his predictions is incorrect. It is the trend from prediction time (1988) to the present that matters.
It's all moot. The target number is about 0.4 C; Hansen got about 0.35 with Scen.B, and Scen.B is much closer to total GHG emissions 1988-present than Scen.A.
@541iceman "Well, Hansen smoothed to annual averages, so some smoothing is reasonable"
Hansen didn't SMOOTH to annual averages, he USED annual averages. So to evaluate Hansen's projections, you must USE the same metric. Reasonableness/ENSO/volcanos have nothing to do with it. To check Hansen's prediction, you've GOT TO use the same metric.
What you're trying to do is move the goal line in the middle of the game. That's the only way you can win, by cheating. Sorry, that's NOT allowed.
@541iceman It is the trend from prediction time (1988) to the present that matters" Yes, I agree! So let's look at those TRENDS, using Hansen's Fig.3(a) Scenario A,B,C #s & actual temps.
Yes, it IS all moot because Hansen's climate model FAILS miserably at ALL scenarios. The actual temperature trend from when Hansen made his predictions is only HALF of the Scenarios A&B and even LESS than Scenario C ("DRASTIC" reduction in GHGs).
ANY way you cut it, the climate models FAIL b/c 1)they do NOT correctly model natural climate variables & 2)they significantly overestimate warming due to GHGs (they ASSUME too high climate sensitivity).
@smartalek65 "No iceman, you're wrong: Hansen's Scenario B prediction taken from Fig.3(a) was >1.0°C above the 1951-1980 baseline average."
I'll split the difference. I smooth the trend over a few years, which puts Scen.B at 0.9 C in 2010. I misread the scale because his grid doesn't line up with his marked value at 0.5 C. So, 0.6 C above 1988; he got 2/3 of the trend correct.
Since he used sensitivity =4K/doubling, that would imply the true value is 2.5K.
@541iceman I see your error on the satellite temps. What matters is the rise from 1988 to present, and that requires no offset. The satellite data uses its own "zero" mark, and that's what the published data is marked from. The average annual average (from the monthly published data) in 1988 was .02 above the set zero mark. The average for 2010 was .41 above that same zero mark. Hence, the RISE was .39 for that interval; whereas Hansen projected a rise of .7 for scenario "b."
A brief note about water. It actually contracts from 0C to about 4C then it starts expanding as is it heated further. It is an anomalous behavior not shown by any other substance.
@541iceman In re: greenman's "co2 lags T crock." I see where the problem lies here. That's a mis-statement of the skeptical point behind temp preceding co2. The scientific point isn't that it makes SHE "impossible," it's a historical test of whether the real world supports the hypothesis of GHG-driven climate change or not. The answer is: not in the realm of our knowledge. COULD it? Theoretically, but only theoretically. Reality doesn't seem to agree.
@541iceman Nope. Wrong. Data says about half that value. Initially, I simply picked a month (August) each year. Since my last post, I averaged each year (1988 and 2010); and came up with a trend of +.39. Of course, I COULD have used 2011- the data's available. If you want to use 2011, a non El Nino year, for the trend, Hansen's projection from 1988 looks worse...
@smartalek65 You are CORRECT smart! If we apply a "correction"(as the warmists like to do) to Hansen's 'Scenario A' for the ACTUAL increase of GHGs of 1.8%/yr rather than his assumed 1.5%, his 2011 forecast would be >~+1.4°C, vs the 2011 actual of +0.46°C, so Hansen's forecast is ONLY off by a FACTOR of 3! His 'climate' model totally FAILS!
ps. please don't take offense at the CAPS, or at the "!" exclamation point. Some people are hyper-sensitive, at least they purport to be. :-)
CONT'D (JGR, vol. 93, D8, 9341-9364, 1988). His scenario "b" is closest to reality from a co2 standpoint (steadily stabilizing co2), and 1988-2010 temp projection shows an expected rise of .7 C. Checking the more reliable satellite temp for the same timeframe, REAL temps rose .35 C; only half of Hansen's projected temp rise for that scenario. I don't call that "reasonably close," pal. That's an epic failure.
@smartalek65 "Hansen": Hansen et al. 1988 (Fig. 3) estimated that the 2010 T anomaly for Scenario B would be +0.7 C *relative to the 1951-1980 baseline average*. The actual value is +0.6 C (tinyurl com/84xc22o). The satellite data (UAH and RSS) show the same behavior when they are offset. The satellite T anomalies need to be offset because they are *not* evaluated relative to 1951-1980.
So, Hansen got 0.7, data says 0.6. That's pretty good, don't you think?
1)Hansen's 'B' 2010 forecast was +0.95°C, not +0.7°C
2)Hansen's 'A'("growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s [1.5%] will continue indefinitely") should be used to compare to actual temps, NOT 'B'("decreasing trace gas growth rates).
Scenario A forecast was >1.1°C.
GHGs have grown @ 1.8% ann, 20% HIGHER than Hansen's 'A' assumption.
So Hansen forecast >1.1°C, data says 0.6. NOT pretty good. Very poor. Don't you think?
@541iceman For sea levels, you're tacitly conceding what Wunsch et al (J. of Cl., 2007) noted: that satellite altimetry can't be tested against any in duty dataset. Church and White, using tide guages, came up with a SLR of 1.6mm/yr. Other papers roughly agree (Holgate, Woppelmann et al, Lulliette and Miller, etc.). Your claim that SLR is accelerating is scientifically groundless. As for Hansen being incorrect, that's so simple, YOU can do it. Check Hansen's paper for his own graphs CONT'D
Sixteen scientists, including such luminaries as Lindzen, Kininmonth, Happer and Shaviv, write to the Wall Street Journal, expressing the view that the global warming scare is completely overblown, and that AGW alarmism may result in increased research funding. Shock! w(.)australianclimatemadness(.)com/2012/01/scientists-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/
@greenman3610 Nope. You REPLIED to my post, where I noted that your vids (NOTE: PLURAL) are marked by distortions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods yet you still refer posters to them, like some kind of bible; seemingly expecting those you falsely deride as "deniers" to bow low and beg forgiveness from the great god greenism for daring to correct your followers' errors.
CONT'D 4) The PERIODS of millennial warmings correspond closely at diverse sites using diverse proxies. CAGW FAILS all these tests. 5) The SLR rate has been SLOWING, according to satellite altimetry. It's been 2.32 mm/yr from 2000-2010. As for being faster than a century ago, not if you're using tide gauges as they did then. Remember: apples-to-apples comparison.
@smartalek65 Sea level: tinyurl com/yvmy59. Back to the 3.2 mm/yr trend line after a blip explained on that web site. Apples-to-apples: Church and White use tide gauges processed uniformly through the entire record. Give us a link, or give up on this line.
@smartalek65 CO2 lag: I never said it didn't go through interglacials as well as ice ages. Please, read before you comment. The lag is associated with positive feedbacks between T and CO2. These are bad. When T is the initiator (Milankovich) , CO2 takes a while to follow. When CO2 initiates, atmospheric T can follow really quickly. The difference is that the atmosphere can respond much faster than the oceans.
@541iceman "When CO2 initiates, atmospheric T can follow really quickly"
Cites proving that please. And not just a correlation, because we know that correlation does not prove causation.
Is that like from the 40s to the 70s when CO2 rose steadily & temps got LOWER? Or like the last decade or so when CO2 rose even FASTER & temps went nowhere?
Skeptical Science ?!?! Get real. That an untrustworthy site. That article has been shown to be wrong by both smart & I. Hansen's 'climate' model was off by a factor of 3!
@RealOldOne2 You cannot use the raw anomaly data for the satellite data sets. They are offset by about 0.3 C relative to the 1951-1980 baseline mean cited by Hansen et al. (1988). As I said (and gave the plot for at the woodfortrees cite), the rise to 2010 relative to this baseline is 0.6 C. Hansen got 0.7 C for Scenario B. That's impressive.
I did the science right. I used HadCRUT data, NOT satellite data b/c it covered the same period as Hansen’s forecast so I didn’t have to apply any questionable mid-record splice. And I DID apply the correct offset at the beginning of the record. So you're wrong on both those counts. Even using Hansen’s suspect GISS data would only raise the 2011 actual to 0.51°C, making his forecast off by a factor 2.75 times instead of 3. That's NOT impressive.
@541iceman Why do you persist in using 2010 as the endpoint when we have full-year 2011 data? Let's use the full record & not cherry-pick an endpoint year b/c it's an El Niño year. Don't you remember what Santer said about doing that? He said:"How informative is that?" Answer: It's not.
And you seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that I pointed out that the comparison should be done using scenario A, NOT scenario B. Scenario A was the realistic "business as usual" GHG scenario.
@541iceman 1) The co2 lag goes through interglacials as well as ice ages. 2) Hanson's scenario that approximates the co2 reality utterly failed the temp rise in reality test. 3) The "hot spot" indicates the falsehood of a key feedback-meaning you can cancel the apocalypse, unless you believe a computer model IS reality (hint: it's not!) CONT'D
CONT'D something's amiss here. So, let's check a key feedback: water vapor. The key here is if water vapor feedback is acting as the hypothesis says, the tropical troposphere should show a "hot spot," as it's called. This "hot spot," however, is absent from the observational record; meaning, yes, another failure of the hypothesis. CONT'D
@smartalek65 So, you've decided to dump every debunked crock onto this page? Do some research. (1) The CO2 lag through ice-age cycles is not the denialist's friend. (2) Hansen (1988) did do a reasonable job of estimating global T changes since then (choosing the correct emissions scenario). (3) The "anthro" warming fingerprint is not for a tropical troposphere "hot spot"; it is for stratospheric cooling. (4) the millennial-scale warming maxima at different sites are not synchronous.
@541iceman "So, you've decided to dump every DEBUNKED crock onto this page?"
No, smart only listed a few. But at least you're admitting that Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610's crocks HAVE been DEBUNKED! Thanks for that unusual bit of honesty.
Why don't you try being just as honest in the the other 4 false points you list? Those 4 plus your sea level rise claim are ALL BOGUS! Geez, why do you repeat such obvious false claims? Oh yeah, it's part of your CAGW religious DOGMAS. Can't deviate!
@RealOldOne2 (1) Flux of heat through a boundary is not a forcing; it is a flux. If the long-term TOA fluxes are balanced, then yes, El Nino means heat lost, La Nina means heat gained. Averages to nothing. As it is, fluxes are not presently balanced (positive into the planet), so El Nino means less heat gained, La Nina means more heat gained.
@541iceman "Flux of heat through a boundary is not a forcing"
There you go again changing definitions! That's why I had to pin Rob down to his defn on the boundaries of the climate system. He said natural climate variables just moved heat energy around WITHIN our climate system. Not true. El Niños end up moving heat OUT OF our climate system.
You guys' forcing/feedback defns are fantasy.
You essentially deny natural climate variability & assume climate is constant except for HUMAN CO2
@RealOldOne2 (2) Yes, past climate changes. Part is internal variability. State where anyone claims that TOA fluxes can't change due to internal variability. It just isn't "forcing" in the sense of "something external to the defined system influencing the system."
A large part is due to what we can define as "forcings". These include solar radiative changes (Milankovich), and unusual levels of volcanism.
Hahahahaha. Rob used the lame excuse of a silly "!" exclamation point to exit the discussion because he could no longer argue based on science.
Now YOU use a lame excuse of some CAPS to exit because you can't back up your baseless allegations with science.
As soon as YT allows some basic HTML formatting so you can BOLD text, I will stop using caps. But until then I'll use CAPS for emphasis, not for shouting. So give up the mock-offense.
@RealOldOne2 As you'd know, ROO, if you'd watched Greenman's video, the "CO2 lags T crock" is not "CO2 lags T"; it is "CO2 lags T, therefore anthro CO2 cannot be responsible for modern warming" (watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24, around 1:40).
I watched it. At 1:30 Prof. Clark says:"so temperature is leading CO2 by 800 years".
You take a tiny snippet of Ball,“due to humans”, to falsely portray THAT as the thrust of the TGGWS. If you watched the whole movie you would see that the overwhelming point was that CO2 does not CAUSE warming, it is the RESULT of warming! “due to humans” was a small passing comment.
Actually, The Great Global Warming Swindle is quite an accurate film!
@smartalek65 Oh, and global sea level rise *is* faster now than in the earlier part of the 20th century. It certainly has its up and downs; all documented by the peer-reviewed papers. If you're a true skeptic, you'll read both sides. Here's my starting point: tinyurl com/65bnfcy. What's yours?
@greenman3610 "jeez. I asked you to respond to this video"
Mr. I'macluelessblowhard3610, you know I've exposed this crock as pure PROPAGANDA.
Take Willis' graph @2:00 and divide the smallest segment (10m) into 50 subdivisions. ONE of those 50 subdivisions is the 20cm that sea level has increased in the last 150 yrs! Less than the thickness of the line! But THAT’S the "emerging hockey stick" you attempt to alarm people with.
@greenman3610 "by the way - 800 year lag? obviously you missed my video"
No Mr. I'macluelessblowhard3610, we didn't miss your 'Temp Leads Carbon' crock. Uhh, that would be the one where you claim that "temp leads carbon"(CO2) by 800 yrs is a CANARD (a false or baseless report), and then show Callion's paper where the abstract says: "CO2 increase LAGGED Antarctic warming by 800 +/- 200 YEARS! Thus proving that it's NOT a canard. It's TRUE!
@quidproquo2004 I've seen his vids. As I've pointed out to greenman himself, they are full of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods. Here, for instance, he repeats the worn-out falsehood that "the sea level rise is still accelerating." The data says otherwise.
CONT'D will produce a warming between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees celcius, with 3 being median value. The co2 itself will only produce a 1 degree warming, the rest are feedback effects. A key question is whether or not the feedbacks actually behave as the hypothesis projects. Well, Stephen Schwartz published a paper in 2010 that pointed out what was blindingly obvious in the observational data-we've only seen about 40% of the projected warming. It's obvious to anyone looking for the truth that CONT'D
CONT'D rate and magnitude. Obviously, the hypothesis fails here, too. Perhaps a little more recent data might help. In 1988, Dr. Hansen told Congress of this dire prediction, and his model gave 3 "scenarios." Our current data (using either RSS or ISH data from satellites) comes FAAARRR short of Hansen's projections, even the reduced co2 scenario. If the hypothesis were correct, it should've come in the ballpark of that scenario. Fails again. The hypothesis says that a doubling of co2 CONT'D
CONT'D is PRECEDED by a rise/fall of temps; by another 800 years on the rise, and about 1-3,000 years before the fall. Obviously, the hypothesis fails this test. Next test we'll try is abnormality, just how unusual was the 20th century warming we observed? Not at all. According to proxy studies (ice cores, borehole cores, sediment cores, tree ring data, etc), there are warm periods fairly regularly (1,000-1,500 years) that approximate or, in some cases, exceed the 20th century in warming CONT'D
@smartalek65 Watch greenman's other videos. His specialty is busting canards. Also, check out. Also, check out skepticalscience dotcom. They have a bevy of debunkery.
@quidproquo2004 "Watch greenman's other videos" Yeah, watch 'In the 70s', 'mini ice age', 'Santer', yada, yada, yada. All DEBUNKED. They're nothing but pure PROPAGANDA BS!
"skepticalscience dotcom" Hahahaha. Another untrustworthy, pure propaganda site!
bit(dot)ly/qnhi4m
bit(dot)ly/AgQux8
bit(dot)ly/pahc21
bit(dot)ly/n9tpeK
They edit articles w/o any indication that they did so to make skeptic comments look like nonsense, as well as cut out comments that show them wrong.Garbage!
@RealOldOne2 By the way, I don't have a problem when people cite papers. I'm happy to keep at the discussion with smartalek about sea level. So long as it's kept to refereed literature, it's fair discussion.
I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I come here to see what the skeptics are on about, and to force me to expand my own education beyond the stuff I work one very day. smartalek just might change my mind about sea level. You won't change my mind about anything.
@541iceman "You won't change my mind about anything"
I don't expect so, because you've demonstrated that the FACTS of science won't change your dogmatic belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
And you have every right to hold whatever religious belief you wish, no matter how anti-scientific it may be. When science shows you wrong, you just change the definitions, or measures, or DATA so you feel that you are right. It's delusional, but that's OK if it makes you feel good.
As for the CAGW topic, I will again show anyone interested that it fails multiple empirical scientific tests. Remember, the CAGW hypothesis is that human GHG contributions are going to cause a "catastrophic" warming of our planet, I don't need to show that co2 causes no warming (that's a greenman strawman from past encounters). The first we'll try is correlation. How well does co2 rise relate to temp rise (and fall)? Not the way you would think. Almost every instance of co2 rise and fall CONT'D
@greenman3610 Since you're asking a question not referenced, go over the post you answered, then rephrase it from what I posted. Otherwise, you admit to a reading comprehension deficiency. Either that or your lame attempt to make a clown of me backfired, LOL. As for you, iceman, I know the answer to ROO2's question; I'm just waiting to see if you, Herr Grunmann, or Rob will answer-admitting the discrepancy.
@RealOldOne2 Actually, I can believe the tactic. Our host, Herr Grunmann, usually just resorts to political talking points (usually either a distortion, misrepresentation, or outright falsehood) to answer a discrepancy; Herr Huneycutt is stooping to a new low in tactics: repeatedly demanding a "clarification" he won't provide a justification for. Amazing, huh?
@smartalek65 Yes, the thing that exposes Rob's hypocrisy is his insistence that my question is NOT clear, but when I repeatedly ask him what is not clear, he just ignores it & repeats his 'not clear' excuse.
His last "it's complex" answer says that he knows, but is afraid to answer. & he claims to want to discuss science. Yeah, right. Where that atmospheric El Niño heat energy goes is a scientific question. His actions convict him of being guilty of NOT wanting to discuss science.
@RealOldOne2 Let me confirm your sanity. Your question is straightforward and in plain English. Looks like Rob is having trouble with the concept-or doesn't want to answer a question he doesn't know the answer to. The guys at RealClimate let him down.
@smartalek65 Thanks. Yes it couldn't be any simpler. & Rob conveniently ignored my request to get specific and explain what it is that he doesn't understand.
He just doesn't WANT to answer.
He had no problem saying that El Niños caused heat energy to leave the oceans & move into the atmosphere, but now he refuses to answer the next logical question: what happens to that heat energy that moved into the atmosphere, ie. where does it go after it moved from the ocean to the atmosphere.
@smartalek65 Hey smart, can you believe how childish Rob is acting?
Obviously the 'polite' thing was just a smokescreen. I was especially polite in my last post, but he refuses to answer.
And how about his mock offense at the "!" exclamation point. That was pretty over the top.
Looks like he's doing a I'macluelessblowhard3610 & going into FULL 'dummy-up' mode. So sad that the CAGW alarmists retreat to that. But when you don't have the science to back you up, not much else left to do
@robhoneycutt "In the meantime, while you're trying to figure out how to clearly formulate a comprehensible question, I suggest you read Loeb 2012"
Hahaha
While I'm waiting for YOU to quit being so OBTUSE, I will read Loeb 2012. We can discuss that one AFTER you answer my clear, concise, straightforward question.
I know you would like nothing better than to change subjects so that you could avoid MAJOR embarrassment. Sorry, NO GO! Your antics are SO transparent!
@RealOldOne2 You have the hardest time having a polite discussion. Insult after insult. Accusation after accusation. "Answer my question!" (Noting exclamation point.) Sorry, but I'm not going to answer someone who asks like that. Your question is NOT clear. Any answer would be very complex. I've tried to make this clear but your response is to berate. You have no capacity to take ANYONE at faith that they are being honest in their statement. You are just a person filled with hate. Bye.
Hahaha. I even said pls the time before, but the polite approach didn't work, so I used an "!" for emphasis to see if that would get your attention. Obviously it did! You are offended by an "!" ?
WOW, someone who's dropped many FU-bombs at me, is offended by a simple "!" punctuation mark? I don’t think so Rob. Seems more like just an another excuse to NOT answer my question, b/c any normal person would judge FU-bombs FAR less polite than an "!"
@robhoneycutt "Sorry, but I'm not going to answer someone who asks like that"
Rob, it's called persistence. I have repeatedly tried to have an adult conversation w/you, responding to your "not clear" by asking you to state what was not clear, but you refuse to do so. Why?
You now say "Any answer would be very complex" but have failed to state that, start w/bullet points & build from there. Why?
"filled with hate"
No Rob, my comments to you do not reflect that, but YOUR FU-bombs?
Rob, please, pretty please, w/sugar on it (is that polite enough for you?) answer my question. (noting the ABSENCE of an exclamation point)
What happens to the heat energy in the atmosphere that the El Niños have moved from the ocean into the atmosphere, ie., where does that heat energy go?
And if that REALLY isn't clear to you, then tell me what's not clear, so that I can clarify it for you. (Again, noting the ABSENCE of an exclamation point)
@robhoneycutt Rob, It's time to end your childish pouting make-believe mock offense at the (dare I type it?) "!" OMG, an EXCLAMATION POINT!!!! (Rob cowers in the corner w/his hands up like a vampire trying to avoid looking a the silver stake, b/c he knows it it will destroy him). Hahahaha
I will give you this Rob. You're a loyal faithful TRUE BELIEVER in the Church of CAGW. When confronted w/science that goes against your CAGW DOGMAS, you REFUSE to admit error. Gaia would be proud.
1)You admitted El Niños move heat energy from the ocean to the atmosphere
2) You admitted THAT heat energy raises the earth's surface & atmos. temp
But you stubbornly refuse to answer my simple question: What happens to THAT El Niño heat energy AFTER it moves into the atmosphere.
Why? B/c you KNOW that some of it is radiated out into space & you KNOW that means THAT heat energy has LEFT THE PLANET, thus CHANGING the earth's energy budget.
@robhoneycutt Once you realized that your forcing/feedback CAGW dogma could NOT stand up under the scrutiny of REAL SCIENCE, you followed Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610's strategy straight out of the Church of CAGW's hymbook & fabricated a silly excuse to go into FULL 'DUMMY-UP' mode.
So now you'll either 1) argue that 'black is white' or 2) continue to 'dummy-up' b/c of your embarrassment.
What would REALLY surprise me, would be for you to admit you were WRONG.
@RealOldOne2 (1) All the noise is because you have different definitions of “forcing”? A forcing in science is something imposed “external” to the *defined* system. Until you define the system exactly, the discussion is futile. Forcing on the atmosphere only comes from the ocean as well as TOA fluxes; Forcing on the climate system, which includes the ocean, land and biosphere, comes from *externally imposed* fluxes. Changes in TOA fluxes can occur because of internal feedbacks.
@541iceman "Until you define the system exactly, the discussion is futile"
THANK YOU for proving my point (that Rob said was meaningless) that you MUST define the boundaries of the climate system before you can have a meaningful discussion about changes to the planet's energy budget!
Rob finally agreed to TOA as the boundary. El Niños CAUSE energy to move past that boundary & therefore ARE climate forcing. That's using YOUR defn, so wiggle & squirm all you want, you & Rob are WRONG!
@RealOldOne2 (2) In that sense, if I define a system that includes human activity, then rising CO2 is also a feedback, not a forcing. The interaction of humans and rest of the climate system cause a change in CO2, a TOA heat imbalance, and warming. Same idea (but opposite effect) for anthro aerosols. And for volcanics, geothermal heat, … Once you define the system to include these things, they change from forcings to feedbacks.
@RealOldOne2 (3) So, El Nino affects the TOA fluxes, with lower planetary heat gain in El Nino years and higher gains in La Nina years. On the time scales of ENSO variability, the time-averaged contribution is negligible.
Yes, and MORE heat energy LEAVES the planet FOREVER, never to return. It's NOT just lower planetary heat gain. It's upper planetary heat LOSS, forever, changing the planet's energy budget.
"time-averaged contribution is negligible"
No, you're wrong. Think about it, what you guys are arguing that natural climate variables like El Niños can never change the planetary energy budget! That's LUDICROUS! Look at earth's history for gosh sake.
@RealOldOne2 Did you not read Ice's comment? Whatever you're trying to ask is not clear. You ask the question 700 times. If the question is not clear then we don't know how to answer it. That's no obfuscation. That's you asking a question that is not clear.
YOU are the one playing silly games. Come on, what is not clear about my question? Tell me & I'll clarify for you.
You readily said that El Niños move heat energy from the ocean to the atmosphere. I'm merely asking what happens to THAT heat energy after it moved into the atmosphere, ie. where does that heat energy move to next? That's EIGHT!
So quit playing YOUR silly games & answer my question pls
@RealOldOne2 If smartalek65 understands what you’re trying to get at, he can answer, yes? After all, we’re all just interested in the truth. Right? Why should anyone write long answers that end up not addressing what the questioner is trying to get at?
So, rather than play cat and mouse, why don’t you tell us what you want us to know, and we’ll tell you if we agree or not, and why. And so on, like adults.
Someone here was predicting that the ice sheet would grow more this year. That is how this and all planets work. There is a point when the sun starts to put positive energy back into the system, I'll call the energy balance skunk line. The planet keeps on cooling because it's lost some latent or retained heat.Uranus keeps on cooling for years after the winter energy balance skunk line. This may tell you something about energy retention or belly button lint, I'm never quite sure here.
bflatkitty 2 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Greenman3610 (the person posting this video) is a FRAUD. Just do some homework on this FRAUD, it is easy enough with Google. Should take about an hour or so for anyone interested.
putittogether 6 days ago
@putittogether
which of the specific statements in this video do you take issue with? Rather than just name calling, I have interviewed real scientists, -- who have given me positive feedback on my work, btw - and I report what they say.
In a discussion, what you do is rebut them, if you can, by citing your own sources. If you have none, then perhaps you should do some homework, as I have.
greenman3610 6 days ago
Why cherry-pick only 2000 years of sea level data? Why not look at ALL the data so we can see the rise/fall of sea levels over MILLIONS of years. 2000 years is NOTHING... We know the reason, it would undercut the alarmist cause. Oh and 550 mya when CO2 levels were 20x our pre-industrial levels and yet....positive feedback didn't happen. Ooops!!! Sceptics win again...
nlpjohn 2 weeks ago
@nlpjohn
for 55 million year perspective see
watch?v=ZGFAWzjO378
or ipcc chapter 6, paleoclimate.
see also, for 3 billion year perspective
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
also, google "origin and evolution of earth" for a volume by the national academy on earth history over 5 billion or so years. free to read online, try chapter 3, "A Habitable Planet"
greenman3610 2 weeks ago
@nlpjohn Thank you for not addressing 550 mya where 20x pre-industrial CO2 levels FAILED to produce the white unicorn called "positive feedback". Oooops....there goes the AGW hypothesis...right down in the toilet... Oh wait...you'll say the sun was cooler back then. Hmmm... Was the sun 20x cooler back then?
nlpjohn 2 weeks ago
@nlpjohn
excuse, but one can't go into and out of glacial periods, as the planet has many times, without the effects of climate feedback.
discussed here
watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
greenman3610 2 weeks ago
@greenman3610
oh petey, methinks you stepped in it
you cant attribute ANY of those entries or exits from Glacial periods to AGW, so they MUST have been caused by something ELSE
so I believe that would mean you just knocked a hole in your precious AGW theory
and as far as models, are you at all familiar with actuarial models?
yep, insurance companies use them to make sure they stay "in the black"
actuarial modellers are PROOF that a model can be made to prove just about anything, such as AGW
whodathunkit1960 1 week ago
@whodathunkit1960
wow. I didn't realize you were that stupid. Sorry. I'll ratchet things down. There are other things that effect climate. They are just not happening now. Watch a scientist explain this to a congress critter who is almost as stupid as you are
watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
greenman3610 1 week ago
@greenman3610 So many excuses you alarmists have. And don't forget all 11 major climate models show that heat radiating into space from earth should be DECREASING due to the white unicorn called positive feedback and YET 20 years of ERBE satellite data shows MORE heat escaping into outer space. Ooops! Another torpedo size hole in the AGW hypothesis. And please don't adress this w/ another UNPROVEN hypothesis....
nlpjohn 1 week ago
Why then can you walk out, any tide state, to a castle in Sweden I believe when it was only assessable by boat in the 1600s. Either the sea has lowered or land risen by over 3 meters. If the land is rising, that water that is displaced has to go somewhere as water seeks it's own level. Tobago is sinking becasue all the asphalt and heavy oil being pulled from under it. Subsidence does not equal sea level rise. Tuvalu was done in by phosphate mining.
Robbob9933 2 weeks ago
@Robbob9933 Let's remember that "moist adiabat" tell us if the temp data is correct, then in the tropics, the upper troposphere should have a "hot spot". All the AGW models say this hot spot should exist yet it can't be found. So either the temp data for the troposphere is bad or.....the surface data is tainted. Skeptics have long attack the surface land temp data as both incompetant and dishonest. surfacestations/org.
nlpjohn 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Robbob9933 "Tobago is sinking becasue all the asphalt and heavy oil being pulled from under it"
Do you have any evidence of this? Because it sounds complete bullshit, but I am willing to be proven wrong.
thesparitan 1 week ago
GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE!!!
Sunblade12 2 weeks ago
@Sunblade12 Baseless claim and in all caps. What are you trying to accomplish, to just be annoying?
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Greenman chose that name for himself. I've told him several times that when he cites his source, then I will quit using the "I'macluelessblowhard" name he chose for himself."
So ok lets use your logic here. If you comment again that means you want to be called a mr.moronic.rapist. Now if you comment that means that you choose that name. Do you think what I just did was childish and very stupid? I think it was. Now do you see why that statement of yours is so shockingly ridiculous?
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
I never said that you are dishonest because you agree with me. You are being dishonest again.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
Oh and you just pointed out that I was right. You said your self it didn't make any difference and are just looking for any error to pound on him for. Like I said you're being dishonest.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan "Like I said you're being dishonest"
So now it's dishonest to agree w/you? You're a HOOT & demonstrating that you're just as clueless as greenman. I remember you from your ridiculous posts in the past. You obviously haven't learned anything since then.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
the ocean has been rising for 100-150 years well that's NOT man made climate change
vmgqie 2 weeks ago
Great interview. I learned quite a bit, from a scientist!
BuckeyNuthouse17 3 weeks ago
Not sure why you’d point people to RealClimate page (tinyurl com/75lgtsz). It says what I said: Hansen got about 2/3 of the trend from 1988 to 2010 so, given he used 4.2 C for sensitivity, it should be about 2.8.
541iceman 4 weeks ago
Sorry, did you say something?
jr73340 1 month ago
There was an excellent debate on the award-winning Canadian news show, the Agenda. It featured two prominent climate scientists, Richard Lindzen and Hadi Dowlatabadi. In the debate they carefully (using good science) debunk the claims of the Global Warming/Climate Change movement. Nobody who watches this debate can reasonably continue to believe in global warming. You can use Google to find it.
jr73340 1 month ago
@jr73340
that's some debate where two guys argue on the same side.
great tip!
greenman3610 1 month ago
Comment removed
jr73340 1 month ago
Also how is it that the climate has been "stable" over the last 10,000 years when that period includes the Holocene Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, & Little Ice Age, eras w/higher & lower temps than the last century? Again, Willis contradicts himself. He is merely spouting CAGW dogmas, NOT science. Someone at NASA ought to tell him to put a cork in his piehole.
And you spread his propaganda. Missing those obvious errors, you've demonstrated that you're not the sharpest tool in the kitchen either.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2
climate has been stable within certain parameters, in that we have been in an interglacial with no dramatic swings such as those of the preceding 100,000 years. I think that's clear enough.
greenman3610 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 "climate has been stable within certain parameters"
OK, then that mean's there's no alarm about some illusionary emerging hockey stick because we are within that stability. I say illusionary b/c there have been numerous ups & downs 10X larger than the recent decades & they never materialized into either upward or downward hockey sticks. It's just natural variability buddy. Give up the alarmism & accept reality.
Now, about the source of your 'In the 70s' quote ... ???
RealOldOne2 4 weeks ago
@greenman3610
lol, the preceeding 100,000 years
the only things we KNOW about those 100,000 years are
1) it wasnt AGW
2) we dont know BOO about any solar factors during that period
3) there was more ice
4) there was LESS water vapor in the air (yep, meaning that there was LESS of the one greenhouse gas that the "climate" truthers like to dismiss first as being "not well mixed")
5) our CURRENT Inter-Glacial-Period is a bigger anomaly than all AGW factors, COMBINED
whodathunkit1960 1 week ago
@RealOldOne2 Why do you insist on spamming this channel and every video on it?
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan I'm not spamming. I'm just posting facts and data that expose Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610's propaganda for what it is.
I also expose his saying one thing ("You see, I ALWAYS cite a source when I make a statement. That way people won't think I'm a clueless blowhard"), while he does another(he's never given the source for his 'denier' quote at his 'In the 70's' crock).
So I'm just doing a public service here so people don't get duped by his deceptive propaganda.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 So what he didn't give a source for the denier quote, it doesn't effect the over point he was making. And yes you are spamming the channel and it isn't helping. If you want to be effective make a couple videos showing were he is wrong and debunking his claims. Otherwise commenting on every video and getting into month long arguments isn't going to get you any were and it looks more like harassment then being informative.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan "So what he didn't give a source"
Like I pointed out he boastfully claimed that he ALWAYS cites a source. No he doesn't. So that make him a clueless blowhard by his own definition.
But you're correct that it didn't make any difference, because I TOTALLY debunked that crock & the historical revisionism contained therein anyway.Ridiculous propaganda claims there like looking at charts & seeing temp data that hadn't even happened yet.
Quote thing is evidence he's all talk.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 He doesn't need to give sources for every possible claim or statement he has ever made, that is a silly demand and I think shows that you are being dishonest here.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan "that is a silly demand and I think shows that you are being dishonest here"
Greenman is the one who boasted "You see, I ALWAYS cite a source when I make a statement. That way people won't think I'm a clueless blowhard."
I was just taking him up on his word to do what he said he "ALWAYS" did. It's neither silly nor dishonest to expect someone to do what they say they ALWAYS do.
What IS dishonest is to NOT do what you say you ALWAYS do. So we've seen that gm is dishonest
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 And further, if you are so sincere about your desire for intellectual honestly then why use childish insults like Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610?
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan "childish insults like Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610"
Greenman chose that name for himself. I've told him several times that when he cites his source, then I will quit using the "I'macluelessblowhard" name he chose for himself.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 Wow, did you really just write that. I am speechless. Umm, ok well ok I guess that proves my point. I cannot imagine anything more childish. and I say you are dishonest because you say you want to inform people but in reality you just want to insult and harass. You have no interest in real debate, you just want to be a bully. Typical of so many deniers. You have lost credibility. I wish we could just have a rational polite discussion. Its very sad you are like this.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan Rational, polite discussion? Remember we tried that on the temp leads carbon crock, but you wouldn't answer any questions & began the "morons like this" insults.
Now you start this discussion accusing me of spamming. I answer your accusation & then you accuse me of being dishonest, childish insults. You're doing the insulting.
"You have lost credibility" That's a laugh. You can quit Gleicking now.
If you have a science question, ask. Otherwise you can stop the harassing
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 I am not insulting you, but you are acting childish by altering someones name and then blaming them for it, which is very stupid to do. I am pointing your behavior, and like I said I think we can assume that you are here for no other reason then to cause problems and insult people.
"Notuuh, you did it first" or "your name is greenman more like mriamabigidiot" This kind of stuff shows us where you are coming from. I can write you off now because of that.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 Why would I ask a science question to someone that only is here to be antagonistic, insulting and harassing?
When you want to stop pettifogging the issues, insulting someone by altering there name(Last time I seen that I was in 4th grade BTW) and being generally dishonest, then I would be happy to talk science with you, but until then I don't see the point, do you?
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
And since you only report facts, how about correcting Willis' error @2:00 too. There he says "In fact, sea level was VERY constant over our stable period of climate over most of the last 10,000 years"
VERY constant? Look at the graph. Ups & downs of a few METERS! How is that stable, when he just claimed that "we're beginning to get this emerging picture of a sea level hockey stick" because of a 0.2 meter change in the last 150 years? I call bull crap on that one! He's contradicts HIMSELF!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
Hey Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610, you say you only report facts, so how about correcting Josh Willis' factual ERROR in this video. @1:08 he says "So we've had about 2000 years that we have decent MEASUREMENTS"
BZZZZ. Wrong, factual error. The earliest sea level measurements were in the 18th century. Everything before that is either models or reconstructions, neither of which are sea level MEASUREMENTS!
So insert a text box there that says 'actually not MEASUREMENTS, but reconstructions & models'
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 The other reason tide guages are more indicative of real SLR is that they measure sea level relative to the land where the measurements take place. THAT'S what matters concerning sea level. Current SLR is nothing to be concerned with. Point to the skeptics.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 "relative to the land" Exactly. And b/c even the satellite measured SL was decelerating, they juiced it up be "correcting" their data for GIA. They aren't even measuring sea level anymore. They're reporting a meaningless virtual sea level which is HIGHER than the real actual sea level. They're really measuring sea volume. Who cares if the floor of the ocean is dropping to lessen actual rise in sea level. Like you say, it where the sea meets the land that is important.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Hey smart, did you see that Gavin over at RC just agreed w/you & I on Hansen's 1988 forecast that the trend in actual temps have been only ~half of even Scen B? Think there's any chance that iceman & Rob will finally admit that they were wrong? Probably not, they're too deep in denial of anything against their CAGW dogmas.
RealOldOne2 4 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2
I definitely recommend anyone to read that post
tinyurl com/29e53y
conclusion?
". Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get."
greenman3610 4 weeks ago
@greenman3610 "THAT post"
MrI'macluelessblowhard3610, you reveal yourself to be a serial deceiver.
I clearly stated "JUST agreed" referring to RC's most recent post 3 days ago, & you say "THAT post" & then DECEPTIVELY link to a RC post over FOUR years old!
Have you no shame?
The recent RC post I referred to showed Hansen's forecast to be ~TWICE what actual temp change has been. But in one sense RC's 4yr old statement was correct; off by a factor of 2 IS as close as the models get.
RealOldOne2 4 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2
Sorry, was not aware of the more recent post. Don't spend as much time on realclimate as I should.
Again, you point to a very decent synopsis that I would encourage anyone to read.
tinyurl com/7yjhy9m
once again, while you point to a good source, your reading comprehension seems poor.
Your citation's conclusion:
"Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues."
greenman3610 4 weeks ago
@greenman3610 "Sorry, was not aware"
Nice try to extricate yourself from your deception, but doesn't pass the smell test:
1) "JUST"- you'd have jumped on me & pointed out that it was 4yrs old
2) Your RC post obs data only went to 2005 & the trends then did NOT verify our 2X claim, which you would've pointed out
"reading comprehension seems poor"
That'd be you, considering the "just" issue & the fact that observed trends have gone from .24/.21/dec thru 2005 to .18/.14/dec thru 2011.
RealOldOne2 4 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2
dude, you cited a post.
tinyurl com/7yjhy9m
I read it. I agree with everything in it.
I urge anyone who wants to see what the current planetary warming status is, to read your citation.
Don't know why you're so pissed off.
greenman3610 3 weeks ago
"BTW, I find it very revealing that 'citizen auditors' like us actually "DO the science" & check the claims, but the 'scientists' like Ben Santer(gm's crock) & Grant Foster, aka Tamino(Oh Pleeze) DON'T."
//rolls eyes (beware of acute Dunning-Kruger poisoning)
robhoneycutt 1 month ago
Let's wait and see how iceman answers that. In the meantime, I've called out greenman on his hypocrisy on his newest vid, where he interviews a climate scientist. He solicits from her a line of remarks about intimidation, people calling her a "liar," yet he sees no hypocrisy in calling we who disagree with his apocalypse insulting slits like "deniers."
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65
insulting "slits"?
I think I must have meant "sluts".
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 Darned spellchek on mobile devices. It's "slurs."
smartalek65 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Yes, it's revealing, but I actually find it disturbing. It seems Feynman's work on scientific rigor is ignored by many disciplines, especially climatology. When empirical data conflicts with the hypothesis, advocating scientists all too often try to excuse the discrepancy, rather than consider whether or not the hypothesis is wrong, either in whole or in part.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Yes, I find it disturbing too.
"excuse the discrepancy"
Exactly. Most recent example: last weeks paper 'explaining' Trenberth's missing heat. Raise the uncertainty band so it's within the uncertainty, so it COULD be correct. Of course they ignore the implications of this that Pielke pointed out, ie. their models may be wrong.
It's disgusting how they corrupt true science in attempt to keep the the money flowing.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Ice will probably yell 'conspiracy', but you only need to follow the money. Grants, salary, carbon tax, C&T, wealth transfer.
In a rare moment of honesty, UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said:"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy ... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore" NZZ Online, 2010
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@smartalek65 As you pointed out to iceman, his claim that sea level rise is accelerating is scientifically groundless. His claim is undoubtedly based on comparing different measuring methods (recent satellite vs historic tide gauges).
Since there is wide y-t-y & decadal variability in sea level, tide gauges are the only measurements that can scientifically determine if SL is accelerating. And the tide gauge record shows that sea level rise is NOT accelerating, it is DECELERATING!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
CONT'D means that CAGW fails yet another empirical scientific test. It confirms Schwartz (2010) finding that we're "missing heat."
By the way, the reason you don't get a notification that I've answered you is that I answer via my mobile device most often. My stepsons monopolize my home pc.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 "I answer via my mobile device"
Perhaps that's why I didn't get mails for Rob's replies. He said he made posts from his iPhone.
BTW, I find it very revealing that 'citizen auditors' like us actually "DO the science" & check the claims, but the 'scientists' like Ben Santer(gm's crock) & Grant Foster, aka Tamino(Oh Pleeze) DON'T.
Seems like they care more about following an agenda ("the cause") rather than following the DATA, which can DISRUPT the "cause" not the climate!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@541iceman ROO2 already showed you the trends from the totals, I'll just back it up with more exact numbers. Hansen's "A" scenario is a rise from 0.3C in 1988 to a 1.1C point in 2010. That's .8C rise in temp. You want a smoothed 3-year average? You've got it. Using satellite data from 1987, 1988, and 1989, you get a 36-month average temp of -.05C; using satellite data from 2009, 2010, and 2011, we get a 36-month average of 2.5C, for a rise .3C. That's an unimpressive rise comparison. It CONT'D
smartalek65 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt You said:"Look, no one is claiming that climate is "delicately balanced on the knife edge of some fictitious tipping point of no return." "
Well, Rob, James 'deathtrain' Hansen said:"we are on the precipice of climate system TIPPING POINTS beyond which there is NO REDEMPTION"
Note that I was I was paraphrasing(no " ").
ROO, knife edge - JH, precipice
ROO, tipping point - JH, tipping pointS
ROO, no return - JH, no redemption
Good paraphrase.
AGAIN, Rob is proved WRONG!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@541iceman Reading my last post, I checked Hansen et al's scenario "a," and his graph places 2010 at 0.8C above the 1988 mark. The rise noted in the satellite data is 0.39C above the 1988 mark. Hansen's projection is off by at least a factor of 2 from the real world.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 For some reason I am not seeing emails alerting me to posts from you.
541iceman 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Scenario "A" is *not* the correct comparison with Hansen et al. (1988) predictions. Scen. A is exponential growth, B is linear, C falls after ~2000. Hansen et al. also applied the scalings to trace gases that doubled the total anthro RF relative to CO2 only in 1988 (Fig. 2).
But actual trace gas (non CO2) emissions didn't grow; CFCs basically disappeared as a source, and CH4 growth was small. So, anthro GHG RF followed something more like Scen. B. from 1988 to 2010.
541iceman 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 In the meantime since my last post, I checked Hansen et al again, and we should be checking scenario "a," not "b," I stand corrected. Section 4.1 informs us scenario "a" assumes co2 will increase at rates similar to the 1970's and 80's. 1970-1988, co2 increased from 326 ppmv to 354 ppmv, a rise of 1.56 ppmv/yr. 1988-2010 was from 354 ppmv to 389 ppmv, an increase of 1.72 ppmv/yr. Scenario "a" (business as usual) is the one that fits that description.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 "I stand corrected"
Kudos to you for admitting that. You & I admit our mistakes. We'll see if ice does.
Re:GHG emissions growth, Hansen has used Global Fossil Fuel Emissions data to define this:"Our approach is to use the historical CO2 emissions curve"(tons of C emitted) & "If rather than being constant, CO2 emissions increase exponentially at 1.5%/year ... This growth rate is perhaps the largest plausible one", Hansen etal 2001)
Since 1989 it has been >1.8%/yr(CDIAC).
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@541iceman I see RealOldOne2 already adressed the points. 1988 was (in figure 2 of Hansen et al, as well) at .3C above the zero horizontal mark, and 2010's projection was at 1.0C. That's .7C above the 1988 mark, correct? So will you kindly admit to your mistake here?
smartalek65 1 month ago
@541iceman If we used the averaged 2011 data, the rise is an even less remarkable .13 C. Hansen's "b" scenario for 2011 was a slight increase from 2010, to .72 C above the 1988 level. The global average temp from the satellite MSU data showed a .15 C level above the same zero mark for the 1988 temps, which was .02 above that mark. For 2011, Hansen was off by a factor of more than 4. Sorry, ice, that's not even in the ballpark.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 No: Hansen's Scenario B prediction was 0.7 C *above the 1951-1980 baseline average* (Hansen et al., 1988, JGR, Fig. 3 top). That is, his prediction for 2010 is 0.4 C above 1988. So again, look at tinyurl com/84xc22o. In 1988 the anomaly is at ~0.2-0.25. In 2010, it's at 0.55-0.6, i.e., up by 0.35.
And yes, I smooth to 3 years. Don't cherry-pick La Nina to make your case. Again, looking at Hansen et al 1988, you see his models give order 0.1 C bumps in interannual.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman No iceman, you're wrong: Hansen's Scenario B prediction taken from Fig.3(a) was >1.0°C above the 1951-1980 baseline average.
The 0°C delta T level IS the 1951-1980 baseline. Section 5.1 of his paper states:"In Figure 3a the temperature range 0.5°C-1.0°C above the 1951-1980 climatology is noted as an estimate of peak global temperatures in the current and previous interglacial periods"
The 0.7°C you claim is *above the 1988 actual level*, not *above the 1951-1980 baseline*!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@541iceman "I smooth to 3 years"
Hansen's Fig.3(a) does NOT smooth to 3 years, so you're comparing apples to oranges w/data from your 37 month mean chart. That's not a legitimate comparison.
"Don't cherry-pick La Nina"
That means YOU can't cherry-pick 2010 El Niño year as the endpoint to make YOUR case. Play by the same rules
Once again, Hansen's scenario A is the one we should be comparing to actual T's. It was for "business as usual" GHG forcing.
Hansen's forecast wasn't even close!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@541iceman In addition to kindly admitting that Hansen's 2010 projection was for >1.0°C as smartalek65 has politely asked you to do, would you also kindly admit that we should be comparing Hansen's Scenario A to the actual temperatures, not Scenario B, since Scenario A is the one that has so far followed a course closest to real-world GHG climate forcing?
Since these are indisputable FACTS, I trust you will make these admissions & not deny that you were mistaken.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 See my previous post to smart. Scen. B. is closer to reality. Hansen et al. (1988) included growth of trace GHGs including CFCs. In 1988, trace GHGs contributed about the same as CO2. However, since 1988, trace GHG contribution *declined* drastically, and CO2 has increase *linearly*, not exponentially, i.e., more like Scen. B.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman No ice, that doesn't fly. CO2 overwhelms all those other more minor GHGs(most of which have been ~ constant or slightly increasing). So the fact that CO2 has increased at 1.95%/yr, vs the 1.5%/yr of scen.A means that the higher than scen.A forecast CO2 growth much more than compensates for the fact that those more minor GHGs haven't grown at 1.5%/yr.
Scenario B forecast DECREASING GHG growth rates. That has NOT been the case.
Scenario A is closest to real GHG growth.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@541iceman "CO2 has increase *linearly*, not exponentially"
Hansen 1988:"Scenario A ... the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of CURRENT EMISSIONS"
‘Current’ 1987 CO2 emissions (human) were 5,755 MMT
2008(latest CDIAC data) CO2 emissions were 8,749MMT
So since Hansen made his forecast, avg ann growth of CO2 emissions has been 1.95% of then-current 1987 emissions level. That is 30% GREATER!
Plot the CDIAC data from 1987. It’s NOT a linear growth
Scenario A is closest to reality
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 "Don't smooth": Well, Hansen smoothed to annual averages, so some smoothing is reasonable. 3 years reduces ENSO signals. Hansen also puts in random volcanic events, so comparing specific years with his predictions is incorrect. It is the trend from prediction time (1988) to the present that matters.
It's all moot. The target number is about 0.4 C; Hansen got about 0.35 with Scen.B, and Scen.B is much closer to total GHG emissions 1988-present than Scen.A.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "Well, Hansen smoothed to annual averages, so some smoothing is reasonable"
Hansen didn't SMOOTH to annual averages, he USED annual averages. So to evaluate Hansen's projections, you must USE the same metric. Reasonableness/ENSO/volcanos have nothing to do with it. To check Hansen's prediction, you've GOT TO use the same metric.
What you're trying to do is move the goal line in the middle of the game. That's the only way you can win, by cheating. Sorry, that's NOT allowed.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@541iceman It is the trend from prediction time (1988) to the present that matters" Yes, I agree! So let's look at those TRENDS, using Hansen's Fig.3(a) Scenario A,B,C #s & actual temps.
Scen.A trend =0.29°C/decade
Scen.B trend =0.27°C/decade
Scen.C trend =0.19°C/decade
Actual temp trends-°C/decade: Giss 0.16; HadCRUT 0.14; RSS 0.15; UAH 0.14
So actual temps were only about HALF Hansen's Scenerio A AND Scenario B & even LESS than Scenario C("drastic" reduction in GHG)
NOT impressive!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@541iceman "It's all moot"
Yes, it IS all moot because Hansen's climate model FAILS miserably at ALL scenarios. The actual temperature trend from when Hansen made his predictions is only HALF of the Scenarios A&B and even LESS than Scenario C ("DRASTIC" reduction in GHGs).
ANY way you cut it, the climate models FAIL b/c 1)they do NOT correctly model natural climate variables & 2)they significantly overestimate warming due to GHGs (they ASSUME too high climate sensitivity).
Epic FAIL!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@smartalek65 "No iceman, you're wrong: Hansen's Scenario B prediction taken from Fig.3(a) was >1.0°C above the 1951-1980 baseline average."
I'll split the difference. I smooth the trend over a few years, which puts Scen.B at 0.9 C in 2010. I misread the scale because his grid doesn't line up with his marked value at 0.5 C. So, 0.6 C above 1988; he got 2/3 of the trend correct.
Since he used sensitivity =4K/doubling, that would imply the true value is 2.5K.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman I see your error on the satellite temps. What matters is the rise from 1988 to present, and that requires no offset. The satellite data uses its own "zero" mark, and that's what the published data is marked from. The average annual average (from the monthly published data) in 1988 was .02 above the set zero mark. The average for 2010 was .41 above that same zero mark. Hence, the RISE was .39 for that interval; whereas Hansen projected a rise of .7 for scenario "b."
smartalek65 1 month ago
Oh wait. Apparently molten silica has the same property.
widebody123 1 month ago
A brief note about water. It actually contracts from 0C to about 4C then it starts expanding as is it heated further. It is an anomalous behavior not shown by any other substance.
widebody123 1 month ago
@541iceman In re: greenman's "co2 lags T crock." I see where the problem lies here. That's a mis-statement of the skeptical point behind temp preceding co2. The scientific point isn't that it makes SHE "impossible," it's a historical test of whether the real world supports the hypothesis of GHG-driven climate change or not. The answer is: not in the realm of our knowledge. COULD it? Theoretically, but only theoretically. Reality doesn't seem to agree.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@541iceman Nope. Wrong. Data says about half that value. Initially, I simply picked a month (August) each year. Since my last post, I averaged each year (1988 and 2010); and came up with a trend of +.39. Of course, I COULD have used 2011- the data's available. If you want to use 2011, a non El Nino year, for the trend, Hansen's projection from 1988 looks worse...
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 You are CORRECT smart! If we apply a "correction"(as the warmists like to do) to Hansen's 'Scenario A' for the ACTUAL increase of GHGs of 1.8%/yr rather than his assumed 1.5%, his 2011 forecast would be >~+1.4°C, vs the 2011 actual of +0.46°C, so Hansen's forecast is ONLY off by a FACTOR of 3! His 'climate' model totally FAILS!
ps. please don't take offense at the CAPS, or at the "!" exclamation point. Some people are hyper-sensitive, at least they purport to be. :-)
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
CONT'D (JGR, vol. 93, D8, 9341-9364, 1988). His scenario "b" is closest to reality from a co2 standpoint (steadily stabilizing co2), and 1988-2010 temp projection shows an expected rise of .7 C. Checking the more reliable satellite temp for the same timeframe, REAL temps rose .35 C; only half of Hansen's projected temp rise for that scenario. I don't call that "reasonably close," pal. That's an epic failure.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 "Hansen": Hansen et al. 1988 (Fig. 3) estimated that the 2010 T anomaly for Scenario B would be +0.7 C *relative to the 1951-1980 baseline average*. The actual value is +0.6 C (tinyurl com/84xc22o). The satellite data (UAH and RSS) show the same behavior when they are offset. The satellite T anomalies need to be offset because they are *not* evaluated relative to 1951-1980.
So, Hansen got 0.7, data says 0.6. That's pretty good, don't you think?
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "Hansen" No ice, you're wrong.
1)Hansen's 'B' 2010 forecast was +0.95°C, not +0.7°C
2)Hansen's 'A'("growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s [1.5%] will continue indefinitely") should be used to compare to actual temps, NOT 'B'("decreasing trace gas growth rates).
Scenario A forecast was >1.1°C.
GHGs have grown @ 1.8% ann, 20% HIGHER than Hansen's 'A' assumption.
So Hansen forecast >1.1°C, data says 0.6. NOT pretty good. Very poor. Don't you think?
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@541iceman For sea levels, you're tacitly conceding what Wunsch et al (J. of Cl., 2007) noted: that satellite altimetry can't be tested against any in duty dataset. Church and White, using tide guages, came up with a SLR of 1.6mm/yr. Other papers roughly agree (Holgate, Woppelmann et al, Lulliette and Miller, etc.). Your claim that SLR is accelerating is scientifically groundless. As for Hansen being incorrect, that's so simple, YOU can do it. Check Hansen's paper for his own graphs CONT'D
smartalek65 1 month ago
Sixteen scientists, including such luminaries as Lindzen, Kininmonth, Happer and Shaviv, write to the Wall Street Journal, expressing the view that the global warming scare is completely overblown, and that AGW alarmism may result in increased research funding. Shock! w(.)australianclimatemadness(.)com/2012/01/scientists-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/
whackitov 1 month ago
@whackitov
luminaries?
loons, maybe.
greenman3610 1 month ago 4
@greenman3610 in your bumbled opinion, probably
whackitov 1 month ago
@greenman3610 Nope. You REPLIED to my post, where I noted that your vids (NOTE: PLURAL) are marked by distortions, misrepresentations, and falsehoods yet you still refer posters to them, like some kind of bible; seemingly expecting those you falsely deride as "deniers" to bow low and beg forgiveness from the great god greenism for daring to correct your followers' errors.
smartalek65 1 month ago
CONT'D 4) The PERIODS of millennial warmings correspond closely at diverse sites using diverse proxies. CAGW FAILS all these tests. 5) The SLR rate has been SLOWING, according to satellite altimetry. It's been 2.32 mm/yr from 2000-2010. As for being faster than a century ago, not if you're using tide gauges as they did then. Remember: apples-to-apples comparison.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Sea level: tinyurl com/yvmy59. Back to the 3.2 mm/yr trend line after a blip explained on that web site. Apples-to-apples: Church and White use tide gauges processed uniformly through the entire record. Give us a link, or give up on this line.
541iceman 1 month ago
@smartalek65 CO2 lag: I never said it didn't go through interglacials as well as ice ages. Please, read before you comment. The lag is associated with positive feedbacks between T and CO2. These are bad. When T is the initiator (Milankovich) , CO2 takes a while to follow. When CO2 initiates, atmospheric T can follow really quickly. The difference is that the atmosphere can respond much faster than the oceans.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "When CO2 initiates, atmospheric T can follow really quickly"
Cites proving that please. And not just a correlation, because we know that correlation does not prove causation.
Is that like from the 40s to the 70s when CO2 rose steadily & temps got LOWER? Or like the last decade or so when CO2 rose even FASTER & temps went nowhere?
CO2 does not drive the earth's temp.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Synchronicity of paleo proxies over millennial scale variability. Citation please.
Hansen prediction wrong. Here's my cites; tinyurl com/2wk7xr5 and Hansen et al. (2006); What's yours?
Don't just repeat the failed memes from your denier friends: give us the sources that we can look at.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "Hansen prediction wrong ... cites"
Skeptical Science ?!?! Get real. That an untrustworthy site. That article has been shown to be wrong by both smart & I. Hansen's 'climate' model was off by a factor of 3!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 You cannot use the raw anomaly data for the satellite data sets. They are offset by about 0.3 C relative to the 1951-1980 baseline mean cited by Hansen et al. (1988). As I said (and gave the plot for at the woodfortrees cite), the rise to 2010 relative to this baseline is 0.6 C. Hansen got 0.7 C for Scenario B. That's impressive.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "satellite data ... offset"
I did the science right. I used HadCRUT data, NOT satellite data b/c it covered the same period as Hansen’s forecast so I didn’t have to apply any questionable mid-record splice. And I DID apply the correct offset at the beginning of the record. So you're wrong on both those counts. Even using Hansen’s suspect GISS data would only raise the 2011 actual to 0.51°C, making his forecast off by a factor 2.75 times instead of 3. That's NOT impressive.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@541iceman Why do you persist in using 2010 as the endpoint when we have full-year 2011 data? Let's use the full record & not cherry-pick an endpoint year b/c it's an El Niño year. Don't you remember what Santer said about doing that? He said:"How informative is that?" Answer: It's not.
And you seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that I pointed out that the comparison should be done using scenario A, NOT scenario B. Scenario A was the realistic "business as usual" GHG scenario.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2
he cites himself and another internet loon as his sources. impressive.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@541iceman 1) The co2 lag goes through interglacials as well as ice ages. 2) Hanson's scenario that approximates the co2 reality utterly failed the temp rise in reality test. 3) The "hot spot" indicates the falsehood of a key feedback-meaning you can cancel the apocalypse, unless you believe a computer model IS reality (hint: it's not!) CONT'D
smartalek65 1 month ago
CONT'D something's amiss here. So, let's check a key feedback: water vapor. The key here is if water vapor feedback is acting as the hypothesis says, the tropical troposphere should show a "hot spot," as it's called. This "hot spot," however, is absent from the observational record; meaning, yes, another failure of the hypothesis. CONT'D
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 So, you've decided to dump every debunked crock onto this page? Do some research. (1) The CO2 lag through ice-age cycles is not the denialist's friend. (2) Hansen (1988) did do a reasonable job of estimating global T changes since then (choosing the correct emissions scenario). (3) The "anthro" warming fingerprint is not for a tropical troposphere "hot spot"; it is for stratospheric cooling. (4) the millennial-scale warming maxima at different sites are not synchronous.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "So, you've decided to dump every DEBUNKED crock onto this page?"
No, smart only listed a few. But at least you're admitting that Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610's crocks HAVE been DEBUNKED! Thanks for that unusual bit of honesty.
Why don't you try being just as honest in the the other 4 false points you list? Those 4 plus your sea level rise claim are ALL BOGUS! Geez, why do you repeat such obvious false claims? Oh yeah, it's part of your CAGW religious DOGMAS. Can't deviate!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 (1) Flux of heat through a boundary is not a forcing; it is a flux. If the long-term TOA fluxes are balanced, then yes, El Nino means heat lost, La Nina means heat gained. Averages to nothing. As it is, fluxes are not presently balanced (positive into the planet), so El Nino means less heat gained, La Nina means more heat gained.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "Flux of heat through a boundary is not a forcing"
There you go again changing definitions! That's why I had to pin Rob down to his defn on the boundaries of the climate system. He said natural climate variables just moved heat energy around WITHIN our climate system. Not true. El Niños end up moving heat OUT OF our climate system.
You guys' forcing/feedback defns are fantasy.
You essentially deny natural climate variability & assume climate is constant except for HUMAN CO2
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 (2) Yes, past climate changes. Part is internal variability. State where anyone claims that TOA fluxes can't change due to internal variability. It just isn't "forcing" in the sense of "something external to the defined system influencing the system."
A large part is due to what we can define as "forcings". These include solar radiative changes (Milankovich), and unusual levels of volcanism.
541iceman 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 (3) When you end up quacking like a duck, focusing on word-play rather than science, overdoing the CAPS, I lose interest.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "overdoing the CAPS, I lose interest"
Hahahahaha. Rob used the lame excuse of a silly "!" exclamation point to exit the discussion because he could no longer argue based on science.
Now YOU use a lame excuse of some CAPS to exit because you can't back up your baseless allegations with science.
As soon as YT allows some basic HTML formatting so you can BOLD text, I will stop using caps. But until then I'll use CAPS for emphasis, not for shouting. So give up the mock-offense.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 As you'd know, ROO, if you'd watched Greenman's video, the "CO2 lags T crock" is not "CO2 lags T"; it is "CO2 lags T, therefore anthro CO2 cannot be responsible for modern warming" (watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24, around 1:40).
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "if you'd watched Greenman's video"
I watched it. At 1:30 Prof. Clark says:"so temperature is leading CO2 by 800 years".
You take a tiny snippet of Ball,“due to humans”, to falsely portray THAT as the thrust of the TGGWS. If you watched the whole movie you would see that the overwhelming point was that CO2 does not CAUSE warming, it is the RESULT of warming! “due to humans” was a small passing comment.
Actually, The Great Global Warming Swindle is quite an accurate film!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Oh, and global sea level rise *is* faster now than in the earlier part of the 20th century. It certainly has its up and downs; all documented by the peer-reviewed papers. If you're a true skeptic, you'll read both sides. Here's my starting point: tinyurl com/65bnfcy. What's yours?
541iceman 1 month ago
@smartalek65
jeez. I asked you to respond to this video, and you go off on a climate denial gish gallop (google it)
by the way - 800 year lag? obviously you missed my video-
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 "jeez. I asked you to respond to this video"
Mr. I'macluelessblowhard3610, you know I've exposed this crock as pure PROPAGANDA.
Take Willis' graph @2:00 and divide the smallest segment (10m) into 50 subdivisions. ONE of those 50 subdivisions is the 20cm that sea level has increased in the last 150 yrs! Less than the thickness of the line! But THAT’S the "emerging hockey stick" you attempt to alarm people with.
Yep, another crock bites the dust! v=xumeM8OxdxA
Hahahaha
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@greenman3610 "by the way - 800 year lag? obviously you missed my video"
No Mr. I'macluelessblowhard3610, we didn't miss your 'Temp Leads Carbon' crock. Uhh, that would be the one where you claim that "temp leads carbon"(CO2) by 800 yrs is a CANARD (a false or baseless report), and then show Callion's paper where the abstract says: "CO2 increase LAGGED Antarctic warming by 800 +/- 200 YEARS! Thus proving that it's NOT a canard. It's TRUE!
Yep, another crock that BITES THE DUST!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@quidproquo2004 I've seen his vids. As I've pointed out to greenman himself, they are full of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods. Here, for instance, he repeats the worn-out falsehood that "the sea level rise is still accelerating." The data says otherwise.
smartalek65 1 month ago
CONT'D will produce a warming between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees celcius, with 3 being median value. The co2 itself will only produce a 1 degree warming, the rest are feedback effects. A key question is whether or not the feedbacks actually behave as the hypothesis projects. Well, Stephen Schwartz published a paper in 2010 that pointed out what was blindingly obvious in the observational data-we've only seen about 40% of the projected warming. It's obvious to anyone looking for the truth that CONT'D
smartalek65 1 month ago
CONT'D rate and magnitude. Obviously, the hypothesis fails here, too. Perhaps a little more recent data might help. In 1988, Dr. Hansen told Congress of this dire prediction, and his model gave 3 "scenarios." Our current data (using either RSS or ISH data from satellites) comes FAAARRR short of Hansen's projections, even the reduced co2 scenario. If the hypothesis were correct, it should've come in the ballpark of that scenario. Fails again. The hypothesis says that a doubling of co2 CONT'D
smartalek65 1 month ago
CONT'D is PRECEDED by a rise/fall of temps; by another 800 years on the rise, and about 1-3,000 years before the fall. Obviously, the hypothesis fails this test. Next test we'll try is abnormality, just how unusual was the 20th century warming we observed? Not at all. According to proxy studies (ice cores, borehole cores, sediment cores, tree ring data, etc), there are warm periods fairly regularly (1,000-1,500 years) that approximate or, in some cases, exceed the 20th century in warming CONT'D
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Watch greenman's other videos. His specialty is busting canards. Also, check out. Also, check out skepticalscience dotcom. They have a bevy of debunkery.
quidproquo2004 1 month ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
@quidproquo2004 "Watch greenman's other videos" Yeah, watch 'In the 70s', 'mini ice age', 'Santer', yada, yada, yada. All DEBUNKED. They're nothing but pure PROPAGANDA BS!
"skepticalscience dotcom" Hahahaha. Another untrustworthy, pure propaganda site!
bit(dot)ly/qnhi4m
bit(dot)ly/AgQux8
bit(dot)ly/pahc21
bit(dot)ly/n9tpeK
They edit articles w/o any indication that they did so to make skeptic comments look like nonsense, as well as cut out comments that show them wrong.Garbage!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 By the way, I don't have a problem when people cite papers. I'm happy to keep at the discussion with smartalek about sea level. So long as it's kept to refereed literature, it's fair discussion.
I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I come here to see what the skeptics are on about, and to force me to expand my own education beyond the stuff I work one very day. smartalek just might change my mind about sea level. You won't change my mind about anything.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "You won't change my mind about anything"
I don't expect so, because you've demonstrated that the FACTS of science won't change your dogmatic belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
And you have every right to hold whatever religious belief you wish, no matter how anti-scientific it may be. When science shows you wrong, you just change the definitions, or measures, or DATA so you feel that you are right. It's delusional, but that's OK if it makes you feel good.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
As for the CAGW topic, I will again show anyone interested that it fails multiple empirical scientific tests. Remember, the CAGW hypothesis is that human GHG contributions are going to cause a "catastrophic" warming of our planet, I don't need to show that co2 causes no warming (that's a greenman strawman from past encounters). The first we'll try is correlation. How well does co2 rise relate to temp rise (and fall)? Not the way you would think. Almost every instance of co2 rise and fall CONT'D
smartalek65 1 month ago
@greenman3610 Since you're asking a question not referenced, go over the post you answered, then rephrase it from what I posted. Otherwise, you admit to a reading comprehension deficiency. Either that or your lame attempt to make a clown of me backfired, LOL. As for you, iceman, I know the answer to ROO2's question; I'm just waiting to see if you, Herr Grunmann, or Rob will answer-admitting the discrepancy.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Actually, I can believe the tactic. Our host, Herr Grunmann, usually just resorts to political talking points (usually either a distortion, misrepresentation, or outright falsehood) to answer a discrepancy; Herr Huneycutt is stooping to a new low in tactics: repeatedly demanding a "clarification" he won't provide a justification for. Amazing, huh?
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Yes, the thing that exposes Rob's hypocrisy is his insistence that my question is NOT clear, but when I repeatedly ask him what is not clear, he just ignores it & repeats his 'not clear' excuse.
His last "it's complex" answer says that he knows, but is afraid to answer. & he claims to want to discuss science. Yeah, right. Where that atmospheric El Niño heat energy goes is a scientific question. His actions convict him of being guilty of NOT wanting to discuss science.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@smartalek65
please list the distortions, misrepresentations, or falsehoods in the video above. provide documentation.
Then, write your paper, get it published, and win your Nobel.
Looking forward to it.
greenman3610 1 month ago 3
@RealOldOne2 Let me confirm your sanity. Your question is straightforward and in plain English. Looks like Rob is having trouble with the concept-or doesn't want to answer a question he doesn't know the answer to. The guys at RealClimate let him down.
smartalek65 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Thanks. Yes it couldn't be any simpler. & Rob conveniently ignored my request to get specific and explain what it is that he doesn't understand.
He just doesn't WANT to answer.
He had no problem saying that El Niños caused heat energy to leave the oceans & move into the atmosphere, but now he refuses to answer the next logical question: what happens to that heat energy that moved into the atmosphere, ie. where does it go after it moved from the ocean to the atmosphere.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@smartalek65 Hey smart, can you believe how childish Rob is acting?
Obviously the 'polite' thing was just a smokescreen. I was especially polite in my last post, but he refuses to answer.
And how about his mock offense at the "!" exclamation point. That was pretty over the top.
Looks like he's doing a I'macluelessblowhard3610 & going into FULL 'dummy-up' mode. So sad that the CAGW alarmists retreat to that. But when you don't have the science to back you up, not much else left to do
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 In the meantime, while you're trying to figure out how to clearly formulate a comprehensible question, I suggest you read Loeb 2012.
Seems they found Trenberth's "missing heat."
robhoneycutt 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt "In the meantime, while you're trying to figure out how to clearly formulate a comprehensible question, I suggest you read Loeb 2012"
Hahaha
While I'm waiting for YOU to quit being so OBTUSE, I will read Loeb 2012. We can discuss that one AFTER you answer my clear, concise, straightforward question.
I know you would like nothing better than to change subjects so that you could avoid MAJOR embarrassment. Sorry, NO GO! Your antics are SO transparent!
Answer my question!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RealOldOne2 You have the hardest time having a polite discussion. Insult after insult. Accusation after accusation. "Answer my question!" (Noting exclamation point.) Sorry, but I'm not going to answer someone who asks like that. Your question is NOT clear. Any answer would be very complex. I've tried to make this clear but your response is to berate. You have no capacity to take ANYONE at faith that they are being honest in their statement. You are just a person filled with hate. Bye.
robhoneycutt 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt "polite discussion"
Hahaha. I even said pls the time before, but the polite approach didn't work, so I used an "!" for emphasis to see if that would get your attention. Obviously it did! You are offended by an "!" ?
WOW, someone who's dropped many FU-bombs at me, is offended by a simple "!" punctuation mark? I don’t think so Rob. Seems more like just an another excuse to NOT answer my question, b/c any normal person would judge FU-bombs FAR less polite than an "!"
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt "Sorry, but I'm not going to answer someone who asks like that"
Rob, it's called persistence. I have repeatedly tried to have an adult conversation w/you, responding to your "not clear" by asking you to state what was not clear, but you refuse to do so. Why?
You now say "Any answer would be very complex" but have failed to state that, start w/bullet points & build from there. Why?
"filled with hate"
No Rob, my comments to you do not reflect that, but YOUR FU-bombs?
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt So here goes try # NINE.
Rob, please, pretty please, w/sugar on it (is that polite enough for you?) answer my question. (noting the ABSENCE of an exclamation point)
What happens to the heat energy in the atmosphere that the El Niños have moved from the ocean into the atmosphere, ie., where does that heat energy go?
And if that REALLY isn't clear to you, then tell me what's not clear, so that I can clarify it for you. (Again, noting the ABSENCE of an exclamation point)
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt Rob, It's time to end your childish pouting make-believe mock offense at the (dare I type it?) "!" OMG, an EXCLAMATION POINT!!!! (Rob cowers in the corner w/his hands up like a vampire trying to avoid looking a the silver stake, b/c he knows it it will destroy him). Hahahaha
I will give you this Rob. You're a loyal faithful TRUE BELIEVER in the Church of CAGW. When confronted w/science that goes against your CAGW DOGMAS, you REFUSE to admit error. Gaia would be proud.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt
1)You admitted El Niños move heat energy from the ocean to the atmosphere
2) You admitted THAT heat energy raises the earth's surface & atmos. temp
But you stubbornly refuse to answer my simple question: What happens to THAT El Niño heat energy AFTER it moves into the atmosphere.
Why? B/c you KNOW that some of it is radiated out into space & you KNOW that means THAT heat energy has LEFT THE PLANET, thus CHANGING the earth's energy budget.
So El Niño IS a FORCING!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt Once you realized that your forcing/feedback CAGW dogma could NOT stand up under the scrutiny of REAL SCIENCE, you followed Mr.I'macluelessblowhard3610's strategy straight out of the Church of CAGW's hymbook & fabricated a silly excuse to go into FULL 'DUMMY-UP' mode.
So now you'll either 1) argue that 'black is white' or 2) continue to 'dummy-up' b/c of your embarrassment.
What would REALLY surprise me, would be for you to admit you were WRONG.
Go ahead, surprise me.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 (1) All the noise is because you have different definitions of “forcing”? A forcing in science is something imposed “external” to the *defined* system. Until you define the system exactly, the discussion is futile. Forcing on the atmosphere only comes from the ocean as well as TOA fluxes; Forcing on the climate system, which includes the ocean, land and biosphere, comes from *externally imposed* fluxes. Changes in TOA fluxes can occur because of internal feedbacks.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "Until you define the system exactly, the discussion is futile"
THANK YOU for proving my point (that Rob said was meaningless) that you MUST define the boundaries of the climate system before you can have a meaningful discussion about changes to the planet's energy budget!
Rob finally agreed to TOA as the boundary. El Niños CAUSE energy to move past that boundary & therefore ARE climate forcing. That's using YOUR defn, so wiggle & squirm all you want, you & Rob are WRONG!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 (2) In that sense, if I define a system that includes human activity, then rising CO2 is also a feedback, not a forcing. The interaction of humans and rest of the climate system cause a change in CO2, a TOA heat imbalance, and warming. Same idea (but opposite effect) for anthro aerosols. And for volcanics, geothermal heat, … Once you define the system to include these things, they change from forcings to feedbacks.
541iceman 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 (3) So, El Nino affects the TOA fluxes, with lower planetary heat gain in El Nino years and higher gains in La Nina years. On the time scales of ENSO variability, the time-averaged contribution is negligible.
541iceman 1 month ago
@541iceman "So, El Nino affects the TOA fluxes"
Yes, and MORE heat energy LEAVES the planet FOREVER, never to return. It's NOT just lower planetary heat gain. It's upper planetary heat LOSS, forever, changing the planet's energy budget.
"time-averaged contribution is negligible"
No, you're wrong. Think about it, what you guys are arguing that natural climate variables like El Niños can never change the planetary energy budget! That's LUDICROUS! Look at earth's history for gosh sake.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
Pardon the goofy grammar. I'm posting from my phone again.
robhoneycutt 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt "posting from my phone again"
Perhaps that's why I haven't got any YT emails on these posts. Didn't know you responded until I just came here.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Did you not read Ice's comment? Whatever you're trying to ask is not clear. You ask the question 700 times. If the question is not clear then we don't know how to answer it. That's no obfuscation. That's you asking a question that is not clear.
So stop playing silly games and make your point.
robhoneycutt 1 month ago
@robhoneycutt "stop playing silly games"
You reveal what you're doing by projection.
YOU are the one playing silly games. Come on, what is not clear about my question? Tell me & I'll clarify for you.
You readily said that El Niños move heat energy from the ocean to the atmosphere. I'm merely asking what happens to THAT heat energy after it moved into the atmosphere, ie. where does that heat energy move to next? That's EIGHT!
So quit playing YOUR silly games & answer my question pls
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 If smartalek65 understands what you’re trying to get at, he can answer, yes? After all, we’re all just interested in the truth. Right? Why should anyone write long answers that end up not addressing what the questioner is trying to get at?
So, rather than play cat and mouse, why don’t you tell us what you want us to know, and we’ll tell you if we agree or not, and why. And so on, like adults.
541iceman 1 month ago