|
Post by woodstove on Mar 15, 2009 13:19:00 GMT
Methinks thou dost protest too much, glc.
A little decorum perhaps... Woodstove This is becoming increasingly bizarre. Have you actually followed the exchange with magellan. I posted some statistics from the GISS Arctic temperature record which showed quite clearly that it's highly unlikely that CO2 is responsible for all (or even some) Arctic warming. Have you understood that. I gave some figures that show CO2 IS (PROBABLY) NOT RESPONSIBLEMagellan then responded with some nonsense about me using "the classic CO2 AGW argument". Now I've occasionally come across this sort of blind, knee jerk response on the more rabid AGW blogs, but thought that sceptics were a much more open minded bunch. I was wrong. Hi glc. Where I come from, all caps = shouting. Bolded all caps = shouting loudly. Just a head's-up. You have been accused by myself and others of obfuscation, and here's why: You argue the AGW party line 95 percent of the time and then step back from it when it appears your true colors will be seen. They have been seen.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 15, 2009 14:05:32 GMT
woodstove writes "You argue the AGW party line 95 percent of the time and then step back from it when it appears your true colors will be seen.
They have been seen."
Sorry, woodstove, I am completely on glc's side, and I think he has been completely consistent in his contributions. He claims, quite rightly, IMHO, that AGW has not been disproved. But he is against governments taking any action on reducing CO2 emissions, since AGW has not been proved. He keeps us skeptics and deniers, honest.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 14:05:39 GMT
So UAH daily anomalies are quite good for predicting UAH monthly anomalies... and not much else I notice that the UAH anomaly is higher than the Hadley anomaly, which only seems to happen during local peaks. This implies lower anomalies over the next few months. We'll see what happens. It looks like you've nailed the UAH predictions, but there have been indications that the surface and satellite readings have been heading in different directions over the past couple of months. This is probably due to a different 'lag' in the response to SSTs. It might be due to that weird 6 month cycle in the UAH record..
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 15, 2009 15:56:01 GMT
woodstove writes "You argue the AGW party line 95 percent of the time and then step back from it when it appears your true colors will be seen. They have been seen." Sorry, woodstove, I am completely on glc's side, and I think he has been completely consistent in his contributions. He claims, quite rightly, IMHO, that AGW has not been disproved. But he is against governments taking any action on reducing CO2 emissions, since AGW has not been proved. He keeps us skeptics and deniers, honest. Hi Jim. We'll have to agree to disagree. Below is one of many similar posts by glc: The final sentence is the tell.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 15, 2009 16:23:19 GMT
woodstove writes "You argue the AGW party line 95 percent of the time and then step back from it when it appears your true colors will be seen. They have been seen." Sorry, woodstove, I am completely on glc's side, and I think he has been completely consistent in his contributions. He claims, quite rightly, IMHO, that AGW has not been disproved. But he is against governments taking any action on reducing CO2 emissions, since AGW has not been proved. He keeps us skeptics and deniers, honest. Hi Jim. We'll have to agree to disagree. Below is one of many similar posts by glc: The final sentence is the tell. Whether it appears cyclic depends upon what you are looking at. The icecore record clearly shows cycles. Steve McIntyre just did a nice piece at the ICCC on proxies for temperature cycles. Whether anything appears cyclic depends a lot on what you are looking at. If you confine yourself to a hundred years of data, well yeah it doesn't appear cyclic cause the closest other indications of cycles out there beyond the decadal oscillations appears to only get you a quarter wave in a hundred years. So GLC likes to put the blinders on. Thats probably fair as long as you are consistent with it.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 15, 2009 21:16:50 GMT
JimCripwell Sorry, woodstove, I am completely on glc's side, and I think he has been completely consistent in his contributions. He claims, quite rightly, IMHO, that AGW has not been disproved. But he is against governments taking any action on reducing CO2 emissions, since AGW has not been proved. He keeps us skeptics and deniers, honest. Jim Thanks for that. You've summed it up about right. The reason I first start posting on SC24, though, was to counter-balance some of the more extreme cooling predictions which I thought were nonsense - and, what's worse, potentially damaging to responsible sceptics. Woodstove: I'm not really bothered too much whether I'm perceived as a sceptic or a warmer. I can, though, point to numerous posts on AGW blogs which have attacked the 'mainsteam' position. In one of his earliest CA posts, Steve McIntyre actually referred to comments I made on RC where I argued specifically with Michael Mann about the use of tree ring proxies. Then, some time later, I forced RC to invent a "server error" in order to lose most of one thread because of the embarrassment my posts caused them. This was after I'd posted a list of world-wide studies which showed that, far from being local, the MWP and LIA affected several regions across the globe. On this occasion, Steve Milloy (Junkscience) saved a cached copy of the thread. I've had countless clashes with Tamino and his friends and, as I commented earlier, have used GISS data to demolish their confidence in the IPCC "Detection and Attribution" studies. But, at least, they were prepared to read and understand what I'd written - which was certainly not the case earlier with Magellan. Anyway, Woodstove, I 've got several other examples where my comments have been highlighted on sceptic blogs and I was particularly pleased on one occasion when one poster made some very complimentary remarks about my explanation of Steve McIntyre's debunking of the Hockey-Stick. You can, then, think whatever you wish, but, make no mistake, I'm not going to accept any old rubbish as fact just because it happens to counter the AGW case.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 15, 2009 21:49:44 GMT
JimCripwell Sorry, woodstove, I am completely on glc's side, and I think he has been completely consistent in his contributions. He claims, quite rightly, IMHO, that AGW has not been disproved. But he is against governments taking any action on reducing CO2 emissions, since AGW has not been proved. He keeps us skeptics and deniers, honest. Jim Thanks for that. You've summed it up about right. The reason I first start posting on SC24, though, was to counter-balance some of the more extreme cooling predictions which I thought were nonsense - and, what's worse, potentially damaging to responsible sceptics. Woodstove: I'm not really bothered too much whether I'm perceived as a sceptic or a warmer. I can, though, point to numerous posts on AGW blogs which have attacked the 'mainsteam' position. In one of his earliest CA posts, Steve McIntyre actually referred to comments I made on RC where I argued specifically with Michael Mann about the use of tree ring proxies. Then, some time later, I forced RC to invent a "server error" in order to lose most of one thread because of the embarrassment my posts caused them. This was after I'd posted a list of world-wide studies which showed that, far from being local, the MWP and LIA affected several regions across the globe. On this occasion, Steve Milloy (Junkscience) saved a cached copy of the thread. I've had countless clashes with Tamino and his friends and, as I commented earlier, have used GISS data to demolish their confidence in the IPCC "Detection and Attribution" studies. But, at least, they were prepared to read and understand what I'd written - which was certainly not the case earlier with Magellan. Anyway, Woodstove, I 've got several other examples where my comments have been highlighted on sceptic blogs and I was particularly pleased on one occasion when one poster made some very complimentary remarks about my explanation of Steve McIntyre's debunking of the Hockey-Stick. You can, then, think whatever you wish, but, make no mistake, I'm not going to accept any old rubbish as fact just because it happens to counter the AGW case. Well, first, thank you for presenting some of the information here that you have, most especially the bits about the LIA not having been a local phenomenon. (Not news to me, but not easy to convince anyone at RC about, either.) You typically, however, exhibit something like disdain when it comes to solar forcing, and that leaves you in an odd position, in my opinion. To wit, you have fought successfully to prove the global nature of the LIA, but you generally argue on this site against the Sun's ability to affect climate. In a nutshell, Maunder, Eddy, Svensmark, and Shaviv are too shrewd, too accomplished, and too intuitively powerful to be wrong. (Not that they are the only exponents of solar forcing, but you follow me, I'm sure.) Many solar physicists predict a prolonged solar minimum during the next 30-40 years. If they are right, and Shaviv et al are right, the evidence will be clear. Habilullo Abdusamatov, the Russian space program's chief of solar research, predicts widespread cold and glacial advance. Is this the "any old rubbish" to which you refer? I want to make clear, though, that I do not side with those on this site who have envisaged a time of catastrophic cold and righteousness-at-the-end-of-a-gun-barrel survivalism. Faster-maturing crops can be substituted in place of wheat and corn, and with humanity's collective intelligence and innovation it should remain possible to feed ourselves. That does not mean, however, that failing to prepare for possible cooling is wise, or right.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 16, 2009 9:56:12 GMT
Woodstove
Two points
1. CO2 may have some effect and its possible that, as I've argued, some of the underlying warming since ~1900 may be due to the an enhanced greenhouse effect. 2. No-one has yet identified a mechanism by which the sun causes significant warming/cooling. You mention the MWP and LIA but the assumption that the sun is responsible seems to be a case of "what else can it be?". Yes - ok - the maunder minimum does appear to coincide with a colder climate. But reliable solar observations only go back about 400 years. The MM cold climate may be the result of centuries of low solar activity AND other feedback effects.
In a nutshell. I don't believe we know anywhere near enough to be able to predict the near future climate from the sun's behaviour. I've had to cut this post short and I may come back to it.
|
|