A late reply…

I suppose I should be grateful that you replied to my question about the wattsupwiththat posting about Venus’s temperature but after reading your reply, I’m not so sure. You say that most of the assumptions in the post are wrong without giving any actual examples, then go on to present a false version of the argument which you make fun of (I believe that tactic is called a straw man). The point you raise is covered in the 450+ comments, where it is discussed at length. I’m not sure which side wins in the debate but at least there IS a debate and not just name-calling. (’Deniers!’)

I presume from your reply that you didn’t properly read the post or replies so I am left none the wiser as to whether Venus’s atmospheric pressure is largely responsible for its’ temperature or not.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/langswitch_lang/sp/

http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/02/like-father-like-son-roger-pielke-sr-also-doesnt-understand-the-science-of-global-warming-or-just-chooses-to-willfully-misrepresents-it/

Thanks so much!
Faithful Minister of the AGW Church of the Holy Atheist Librul Lame Stream Media Obama Socialism, etc.

The solar wind has been matched quite nicely with our 20th century weather and cloud cover.

False.

…the seas are rising at the same rate they always were…

False.

…the arctic ice is recovering nicely…

False.

The Antarctic ice extent continues to grow…

While Antarctic ice volume continues to shrink.

Please do not post anything else until you understand why you should believe the input of your own eyes when attempting to cross a busy street.
__________________________________
Nigel, lift your head up, flush the bowl you are not drowning in sudden CAGW sea level rise.

“119. Nigel Depledge Says:
June 15th, 2010 at 6:03 am

Paul in Sweden (89) said:

Ergo, we do not know the dynamics of the earth’s climate, we know anthropogenic emissions have a theoretic positive and negative influence on long wave absorption & dissipation of energy so in a “Hail Mary” without any observational evidence we will guess/believe “have faith” that the only possible reason that the earth is warming since the little ice age is anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Got that Nigel, but that dog won’t hunt!

Hmmm … it seems to me that you have missed something here.

The greenhouse effect is well established. Without it, the Earth would be at least 30 °C cooler than it is (mainly due to the contributions of water vapour).

Human activity has been adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and nothing else has.

The climate is warming.

Solar input has not changed (well, this depends how picky you want to get. In fact, it seems that insolation has been slightly less in the last 10 years or so than in the preceding time for which we have any data).

It seems to me that the evidence quite clearly points to AGW.

Especially since there is no evidence to date of any other cause for the recent warming. This requires no faith at all, just sound reasoning.

I guess that kind of reasoning is disagreeable to you for some reason.”

Your ‘belief’ that solar input has not changed is worth about as much as your other faith based utterances. The solar wind has been matched quite nicely with our 20th century weather and cloud cover. This ‘might’ be a clue into the subtle fluctuations that you and other chicken little alarmists have blown out of proportion. I do not hang my hat on Svendsmark’s theory as it is only a small piece of a climate puzzle with many pieces still missing. I like many actual scientists have no problem saying we just do not have enough data(evidence) to conclude anything.

Out in left field you however are perfectly comfortable in your faith and willing to hold no evidence in either hand and conclude “the sky is falling” although the sun is shining, the seas are rising at the same rate they always were, the Glaciers in the Alps are not melting as fast as they were in the ’30s & ’40s, the arctic ice is recovering nicely & even Alarmists have realized that the 2007 summer minimum was due to a change in wind patterns that blew the ice out to lower latitudes. The Antarctic ice extent continues to grow, the Pacific Island Nations of The Maldives, Tuvalu, etc are growing as coral islands would be expected and not sinking or in danger of capsizing as one Democrat in the USA government thought Guam. Where is the problem that you desperately seek a solution? The only worries exist in computer models and they are designed specifically to generate the very problems they output. Use your eyes, read the actual data.

Where do you see a problem? If you do see problems come back with some evidence that anthropogenic emissions for the first freaking time in the entire roller coaster history of our planet has even the potential to change the Global Climate.

Nigel should you happen to stumble into any kind of evidence and someone says “Hey Nigel, that is evidence” please post it here! Should I come across any evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having a catastrophic effect on our Global Climate I will post it here also.

Nigel, please re-read your previous posts, if you do you will clearly see you have not posted anything that resembles evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have had or will have a catastrophic effect on the global climate. This of course is not your fault as no such evidence exists anywhere.

Ah, I see from this parag that you haven’t the slightest clue what a sound logical inference is.

Please do not post anything else until you understand why you should believe the input of your own eyes when attempting to cross a busy street.

Ergo, we do not know the dynamics of the earth’s climate, we know anthropogenic emissions have a theoretic positive and negative influence on long wave absorption & dissipation of energy so in a “Hail Mary” without any observational evidence we will guess/believe “have faith” that the only possible reason that the earth is warming since the little ice age is anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Got that Nigel, but that dog won’t hunt!

Hmmm … it seems to me that you have missed something here.

The greenhouse effect is well established. Without it, the Earth would be at least 30 °C cooler than it is (mainly due to the contributions of water vapour).

Human activity has been adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and nothing else has.

The climate is warming.

Solar input has not changed (well, this depends how picky you want to get. In fact, it seems that insolation has been slightly less in the last 10 years or so than in the preceding time for which we have any data).

It seems to me that the evidence quite clearly points to AGW.

Especially since there is no evidence to date of any other cause for the recent warming. This requires no faith at all, just sound reasoning.

I guess that kind of reasoning is disagreeable to you for some reason.

Now actually read what you pasted!

I have. Thank you for making your intellectual dishonesty clear to everyone. There’s little point engaging in a discussion with someone who believes that CAGW is false as an article of faith.

” I live in a place called Withernsea near hull in the UK. The water level at the time of my great grand daddy was at such a low level that there were villages that are now gone under the sea. And guess what, its getting higher.”

Hullk, I guess that Paul hasn’t read this as he is too busy bowing to the Pielke statue in his shrine :

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/Science/natural/profiles%5CnaProfile21.pdf

Especially this section:
“By trapping heat in the
atmosphere, this may be causing a gradual warming of the global climate, with far reaching
implications for the Humber Estuary and the low lying land around. One of the major effects
of global warming could be rising sea levels, as water in the oceans expands with increasing
temperature and glaciers melt releasing more water. This will lead to greater pressure on the
sea defences and the widespread threat of flooding of low lying land.
Almost four hundred thousand people live in this flood zone protected by embankments.
Rising sea level has serious implications for these flood defences, raising question such as:
should the defences be heightened and enforced or should we really be living or working in
such an area. Without interference, the coastline would retreat under rising sea levels,
creating new beaches and mudflats to reduce the power of the waves.”

And here we get this statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holderness

“The estuary is shallow because of this constant deposition. Isostatic recoil is, however, causing the area to sink at the rate of 3 mm annually and global warming is making the sea level rise.The combined effects of these processes mean that the sea in the estuary may be half a metre higher by the year 2050.”

I hope you can swim Hullk.

“Read the “Freaking IPCC third assessment report Read the IPCC fourth Assessment Report” nowhere in the TAR or AR4 will you find any evidence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions causing catastrophic climate change.”

You mean this one don’t you?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-1-1.html

It doesn’t contain any evidence of CAGW because its about mitigating the effects of GW.

Paul you mean this guy. Seems he’s full of misconceptions himself.

“Pielke’s highly punctuated outburst does a disservice to his own record. His argument that three years of temperature records constitutes a reliable trend is, again, unworthy a scientist of his accomplishment. ”

And here is some more of his “misconceptionality”:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/02/like-father-like-son-roger-pielke-sr-also-doesnt-understand-the-science-of-global-warming-or-just-chooses-to-willfully-misrepresents-it/

And here:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/22/roger-pielke-jr-denier-john-tierney-link-climate-change-extreme-weather/

Paul, is Pielke your messiah in the firm faith of your denialism?

I suspect he’s referring to the US temperature record, for which 1934 and 1998 are basically tied for warmest year.

Of course, should have remembered that some people think that US == the globe.

Even then the trend must be ascending. I guess he’s using the denier trick of drawing a line from 1934 to 2009.

Swedish Paul writes:

“No Nigel there is no evidence of CAGW in any scientific paper.”

Wow man you’ve read every single one of those scientific papers and seen through the global conpiracy! Why aren’t you up for a Nobel prize for saving science from making such a huge mistake?
I’d also like to know how a one man debunkerating army, sorry, climate realist like yourself defines catastrophic?
Would a sea level rise of up to ten feet fit the bill?
______________________________________

Aaron,

Have you read any science papers? Has science affirmed your faith in the church of Global Warming? Share your spiritual light.

Post any evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a catastrophic effect on the global climate.

It is that simple.

Models, just models, only models, nothing more than models.
Could you give us a numerical prediction, just one, that confirms the AGW hypothesis in the same framework in wich it explains past climate changes?

What the hell do you think a model is? Observations in, predictions out.
________________________________
Martin, you are sorely mistaken.

Rodger Peilke Sr. is a good place to start on correcting your misconceptions of Climate models(he is a warmest scientist and he actually does science).

The climate models are not just Garbage In Garbage Out, the feedback assumptions do not reflect the climate on planet earth. This is why they are always wrong. Dr. Peilke Sr. in some of his recent writings explains why the predominate climate models are wrong in the same way. If ten climate models are all in agreement and wrong that does not change reality. In Climate science this does not seem to be true. Observational data seems irrelevant in Climate Science.

There are just so many dynamics of our climate that we just do not know. This is admitted by both actual scientists and by the popular Alarmists. I don’t get a warm and fuzzy feeling when a worker in the Global Warming Industry says “we don’t really know how things work but we are 95 percent confident of our conclusions”.

Now actually read what you pasted!

Re Heber Rizzo

Mr. Rizzo obviously thinks’ he being funny but he’s just being pathetic. The data that was available for 1934 is pathetic compared to the data that is available for the last 10 or 15 years. I suggest we start with 1997 and exclude 1998 as an outlier which has been explained, in part, as due to an unusually strong El Nino. Obvously, Mr. rRzzo doesn’t know what a statistical outlier is. Nobody except clowns like Mr. Rizzo put any credence in global temperature data in 1934 as climate change was not even an issue back then. On the other hand, its clowns like Mr. Rizzo and Mr. moptop and Mr. Verbus that provide the blog with much unintended amusement.
_______

The newer automated weather stations of today with limited length computer cables located under air-conditioning vents and on tar roof tops of today are much more accurate than the mercury thermometers of 1934.

Look at the places we measure temperature. Check out the IR pics. http://surfacestations.org/

Based on crap/cherry picked data there is panic based on possible variations of only tenths of a degree C over more that a century?

Get real. Look at the science yourself.

“Open your window. Take out your old pictures, go down to the shore. See the water level today and look at the water level of the day of your great, great grand father. ”

Paul, I just did what you told me to do out of blind faith to your unsupported and blinkered rant. I live in a place called Withernsea near hull in the UK. The water level at the time of my great grand daddy was at such a low level that there were villages that are now gone under the sea. And guess what, its getting higher.
Now tell me why after twenty years of shilling for tobacco and oil, and selectively ignoring what scientific papers say, how you 100% know that catastrophic global warming won’t occur. Perhaps it is a symptom of your weak minded faith of denial that you evangelize for the oil companies.
________________________
Hullk your worries are unwarranted. Ease your mind by reading: “Land-ocean interaction:” + “Book for the Withernsea tide gauge” on google books and you will find that what you see out your window is not the specter of CAGW.but simple coastal erosion.

Science is a wonderful thing Hullk, you should consider looking in to it every once in a while.

I’d love to know how you came to that conclusion. Trendline from 1934 to 2009 is ascending (though obviously not really linear.).

Not just ascending, but quite obviously so. I suspect he’s referring to the US temperature record, for which 1934 and 1998 are basically tied for warmest year.

Models, just models, only models, nothing more than models.
Could you give us a numerical prediction, just one, that confirms the AGW hypothesis in the same framework in wich it explains past climate changes?

What the hell do you think a model is? Observations in, predictions out.

OK. Not 1998 as a starting point. So… why no take 1934. Since then, the slope is descending.

I’d love to know how you came to that conclusion.

Using either GISS or HadCRU data, the trendline from 1934 to 2009 is ascending.

If you ment the 12 years since 1934 the trend line is still ascending.

Still, if you look hard enough I’m sure you can cherry pick a point where the slope is descending.

Mr. Rizzo obviously thinks’ he being funny but he’s just being pathetic. The data that was available for 1934 is pathetic compared to the data that is available for the last 10 or 15 years. I suggest we start with 1997 and exclude 1998 as an outlier which has been explained, in part, as due to an unusually strong El Nino. Obvously, Mr. rRzzo doesn’t know what a statistical outlier is. Nobody except clowns like Mr. Rizzo put any credence in global temperature data in 1934 as climate change was not even an issue back then. On the other hand, its clowns like Mr. Rizzo and Mr. moptop and Mr. Verbus that provide the blog with much unintended amusement.

Paul, I just did what you told me to do out of blind faith to your unsupported and blinkered rant. I live in a place called Withernsea near hull in the UK. The water level at the time of my great grand daddy was at such a low level that there were villages that are now gone under the sea. And guess what, its getting higher.
Now tell me why after twenty years of shilling for tobacco and oil, and selectively ignoring what scientific papers say, how you 100% know that catastrophic global warming won’t occur. Perhaps it is a symptom of your weak minded faith of denial that you evangelize for the oil companies.