dizzle's Pick For Wednesday, December 24 ~

[Dee Dee Warren]

Alright let's start over here since we all seem to be on different pages and I think we all agree this is far from productive.

Then please start answering the questions we throw at you rather than ducking and dodging.

Shadowmaster, I'll start with you: For one thing, I never said anything to jusitfy "You say above that everything is proven ." I don't need accusations of strawmans and red-herrings when I am given equal treatment. I mentioned that the greenhouse physics was well known and so is the forcing to a change in CO2. What is less known are the responses to a changing climate such as ecosystem shifts, changes in atmospheric circulation, and the like. I don't think anyone seriously said otherwise. We have very good evidence that the globe is warming, and all serious attribution studies show an enhanced greenhouse effect is to blame.

You clearly haven't had a course in logic. By saying what is bolded, you commit the logical fallacy of ad populum. (Everyone knows this or that, or "all serious studies say this or that". First off, it isn't true that all studies say the thing you say it is. If so, please document that not a single study disagrees with you. Given that the there are lots of studies on the solar side of the issue that indicate that the sun may be warming (the guys at ACRIM are most assuredly not into AGW as far as I can tell from this Jet Propulsion site), Yet you act as if there are no counter arguments. All that says is that you actually haven't read sufficiently on the issue to know the data well enough to state that all 'serious attribution studies say what you say they do.

Specified "fingerprints" for an enhanced greenhouse effect including spectra of outgoing radiation, stratospheric cooling and contraction, decreases in the diurnal temperature range, etc have been modeled and validated with observations.

I don't think you understand spectra any better than you understand thermal physics. If the sun or coal or whatever was heating the earth, and raising the temperature by X degrees, the outgoing spectra would be the same as if it was only due to CO2. I know you won't document anything you say (at least that is your history here to the present point), but I would ask for what in the heck you are talking about.

OTOH, models have severely underestimated the rate of arctic sea ice loss and response times to Greenland melt, which suggests (not suprisingly) that our knowledge of ice sheet physics or the sensitivity of sea ice is incomplete. I referneced the USCCP report to discuss where the strengths and where the limitations are and how "robust" models are for various climate variables, which is important for policy makers.

So, can you explain why Antarctica is not experiencing the melting that the Arctic is? I can, but I bet you haven't studied the situation enough to know why.

Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report, IPCC, AR4-syn , p 33

Antarctic sea ice extent shows inter-annual variability
and localised changes but no statistically significant average
multi-decadal trend, consistent with the lack of rise in near-surface
atmospheric temperatures averaged across the continent."

www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

© source where applicable

sarcastic mode on--there must not be any CO2 over antarctica.--sarcastic mode off

Paleoclimatic data support model estimates of sensitivity and the GMST anomaly is well-captured given paleo-forcings in these models.

Let's see a quotation, a citation. You keep making pontifical statements. Why should we believe what you say when you never actually point us to chapter and verse documenting what you say.

grmorton: But the Balling and Idso (2002) paper determined that adjusted U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature trends for the past 30 years were slightly more positive than those derived from other datasets and thus siggested that a “spurious” warming that likely resulted from the adjustments for historical variations in observation time.

This 'spurious' warming amounts to HALF OF WHAT THE WARMING FOR THE PAST CENTURY IS SAID TO HAVE ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Think about that. Think about the magnitude of that spurious warming. It isn't some smidgeons worth of being wrong.

You referenced the paper so it is incorrect to say “time of observation” is irrelevant here.

time of observation usually refers to the time at which the thermometer is read. That is not what we are talking about here.

I referenced the Peterson paper and the Vose et al paper, the latter suggesting Climatology Network temperature trends are consistent with those in other data sets.

Peterson's paper doesn't say that the US temperature network is consistent with other data sets. That isn't what that paper is about at all. Gosh, I think you make things up as you go along. And you still haven't answered the questions I asked--like why does the land heat up from 2003 onward but the oceans cool? You know there is no urban heat effect out in the oceans. There are no airconditioner exhaust fans.

By the way, chapter 1 is not about surface temperature observations so I don't know why you are looking there. The synthesis report is a long summary of all three reports so you may not find the detail you want either. With all due respect, I'll be glad to make claims and reference sources, but I can't do homework for people.

Well, you made an assertion--an assertion lacking any documentation. I don't beleive what you say. It is up to you to point me to the place where you say the information is because it is YOUR assertion. So, if I am looking in the wrong place, then cite the place. All I see you doing is citing things that you haven't actually read or citing data that you know not from whence it came.

So far, your scholarship looks sloppy.

My discussion about air conditioners is off-topic and over.

Sorry, but you don't get to decide what is off topic. It has been part and parcel of this thread and discussed by one and all. I think you simply have shown yourself to be a know-nothing who cant tell people where he gets the backing for the things you say and when backed into a corner you cluck-cluck, chicken out.

If MrMan wants to contribute something about (A)Global Warming then we can take that route. The "attacking" tone by those in this forum is unnecessary, when I simply requested reasonable objections to AGW and so far have received none.

Yes, I go on the offensive when people duck and dodge. And I find it hillarious that you, the guy who wrote that bullying piece about anyone who doubts anything about temperature rise (or disagrees with you) is a crank, a crackpot or a nutter, would suddenly get religion and decide that attacking isn't nice. I think it is because you can dish it out but can't take it. Cluck cluck comes to mind.

I did not call anyone here a crackpot (I hardly did on my blogpost either if anyone reads it over) and yet continue to be accused of such. If anyone is in the position to "end the discussion" it should have been me, but I'm in a Christmasy mood.

Your piece is called the "Crackpot index" I dont' think you can honestly say you haven't called people who don't agree with what you believe "crackpots".

Now, can you please answer some questions. Why have the oceans cooled while the land heated?

Why do the Lords of temperature measurment allow their MMTS's to be put next to air conditioner exhaust fans.

Why do you support taking a cooling trend, changing it to a warming trend, via the homogeneity correction, and then concluding that it is warming everywhere. I posted this for you and you didn't answer or discuss it.

You haven't commented on the drop in the speed of the solar wind nor of the drop in sunspot numbers (which so far this month we have only had 3 days with sunspots) nor have you commented on the fact that the sun was more active in the 1990s than at anytime during the past 8000 years. All you do is duck and dodge and then complain that we are in attack mode. You are a sissy, sir!

You haven't commented on the change in the historical temperature record that took place between 1999 and 2008. I posted this picture twice. But you duck and dodge.

If you don't want an attack mode dialogue, start answering the quesitons. Ignoring questions, and then pontificating your position, without dealing with the questions we ask, shows that you are not at all serious about truth. You are merely a partisan, a true believer, but not anywhere near to being a scientist.

Are you going to ever answer Frank's four questions? No, I didn't think so. Cluck cluck

I understood about 1 percent of this, but it is nice to see some serious fighting back on the global warming hysteria.

[Hamster]

I wonder if people are going to look back on us the way we look back to the 50s at everyone who panicked and built bomb shelters in their backywards

[Darth Executor]

I understood about 1 percent of this,

That's cuz you're a woman.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And I was just about to send you a nice PM. Thank God I saw this first. I love Providence.

[Darth Executor]

[Dee Dee Warren]

Seriously. But actually you can read what I was going to say in the Sorority where I somewhat took your side on the relationship issue, and now the ladies hate me ;)

[Darth Executor]

The "I'm disgusted to agree with DE" part? Yeah, real heartwarming stuff.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yeah like you are such a warm guy yourself. There were some things you said that I would distance myself from by ten miles, but you were not entirely wrong at all. You said a lot that was truth. If you hadn't said such a jackass comment in this thread, I would have written you a very nice PM sans the sarcastic comment to let you know that you had some female support on some of what you said.

I didn't know you had your sense of humour removed for the Advent season, let me know next time.

[Darth Executor]

If you hadn't said such a jackass comment in this thread...

I didn't know you had your sense of humour removed for the Advent season

Irony, meet thy master.

The smilie at the end of my last post is sign enough that my sense of humor is just fine. It wasn't serious. Neither was the "cuz you're a woman" part. I make misogynist jokes all the time. That's all they are. JOKES. Sheesh...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Point taken, my apologies. I was already quite pissed off at the moment I made that as you know. I took a nap and have already forgotten earlier.

[Darth Executor]

No problem. Merry Christmas.