2016 on track to smash record for warmest year globally

By Tom Yulsman | November 16, 2016 9:54 am

“No surprise here, planetary warming does not care about the election”

Here's how temperatures differed from average around the globe in October 2016, which was the second warmest such month on record. Note the particularly intense warmth in the Arctic. (Source: NASA GISS)

Here’s how temperatures differed from average around the globe in October. Note the particularly intense warmth in the Arctic. (Source: NASA GISS)

The heat streak continues, with October 2016 coming in as second warmest such month on record, according to the latest monthly update from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Global average temperature during October 2016 was 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.89 degrees Celsius), warmer than the 1951-1980 mean for the month.

The three warmest Octobers on record have now occurred during the last three years. Looking at an even longer period, the top 10 October temperature anomalies all have occurred since 2000.

“We continue to stress that long-term trends are the important thing, much more so than monthly rankings,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of the Goddard institute, in a statement issued yesterday.

Here’s that long-term trend, with Schmidt’s prediction for 2016 overall — along with a little editorial comment about the recent election: 

It’s looking almost certain that 2016 will beat 2015 for the distinction of warmest year globally, and by a significant margin.

October’s warmth was particularly intense in the Arctic, where temperatures reached 15 degrees Fahrenheit (8.7 degrees Celsius) above average for the month.

SEE ALSO: Dear President-Elect Trump: Climate change is not a hoax. Please consider this: It’s raining near the North Pole

A map of the October 2016 LOTI (land-ocean temperature index) anomaly, showing that the Arctic region was much warmer than average. The United States and North Africa were also relatively warm. The largest area of cooler temperatures stretched across Russia. (Source: NASA GISS)

A map of temperature anomalies during October 2016 shows that the Arctic region was much warmer than the 1951-1980 mean. The United States and North Africa were also particularly warm. The largest area of cooler than average temperatures stretched across Russia. (Source: NASA GISS)

Unusually warm conditions have persisted into November up in the Arctic, where sea ice also continues to trend at record low levels for this time of year.

2016 Arctic Sea Ice

The growth of Arctic sea ice has been extremely sluggish during October and November of 2016. (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center)

With freeze-up progressing so slowly in the Arctic this year, it will be interesting to see how low sea ice might go next summer.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

    It is very likely that 2016 will be a record year for the satellite data sets (which measure the troposphere) too, though not by a large margin.

  • OWilson

    The planet doesn’t care about elections, but global warmers should.

    The folks who have been pushing it as “The Greatest Threat Facing Mankind” are in the decline.

    Al Gore, John Kerry. Obama, Hillary/Bernie have been booted out of office. U.N.’s IPCC Chairman Pachauri was fired for sexual harassment, and the MSM who pushed it have been temporarily demoralized, and exposed as political campaigners for the Left.

    The country at large, and much of the world, is moving away from the Left, and we have our own priorities. Civil order, cyber security. and three wars.

    We will accept the “settled science” that the Earth is warming and have experts study the potential impacts, and responses, if required.

    A sensible mature approach.

    No more counter productive “chicken little” hyperbola!

    • Mike Richardson

      Or the beginning of a long twilight, if you aren’t a right wing political extremist valuing political rhetoric over objective reality.

      • OWilson

        Worldview, Mikey!

        You can never understand.

        Is it just another lump of rock, or is there a Venus de Milo, a David, or a Pieta, inside waiting to be released, by the right artist? :)

        • Mike Richardson

          I’m only an extremist to someone so far to the right that anyone willing to look objectively at facts would be considered so. You try to project your own level of political extremism on others, but I’d never stoop to the level of hoping for communism, whereas you seem eager to witness the rise of fascism in my country. There’s a limit to what I consider acceptable from the left, but you’ve yet to stand up to any kind of right-wing extremism, which is why you may as well come out of the closet and proudly embrace your fascism. If you truly believed in freedom, you wouldn’t be so happy to see the arrival of a regime that would happily roll back freedoms for any group that didn’t endorse their regressive views of society. Just witness Trump’s reaction to the press, the demonstrations, and even the cast of “Hamilton.” Clearly he and Putin share the same view of freedom of expression, in addition to mutual appreciation often found between dictators and would-be dictators. But it’s only bad if these tendencies come from the left, eh? There’s just no consistency when it comes to your righteous indignation, which makes it quite a bit less righteous, doesn’t it?

          • OWilson

            Reagan and Gorbechev found “common ground” and ended the 50 year MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) Cold War.

            Your Democrat Administration Dropped the first Atomic Bombs in history, and another Democrat, Kennedy brought the world to the very edge of nuclear holocaust.

            You Democrats are very, very dangerous people who can so easily excuse such madness!

            Hillary would have been even more dangerous, trying to prove she had gonads!

          • Mike Richardson

            Trump seems to have a temperament much like yours — which is to say, if he had been President during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and not Kennedy, we most likely would not be alive to have this conversation. But please pretend he’s the more rational choice.

          • OWilson

            Your guesses, predictions, and assumptions, don’t carry any weight Mikey! :)

    • Bart_R

      What does any American care what some Canadian rent seeker has to say about American elections?

      Seems a bit silly for a Canadian who now can’t get hired by Justin Trudeau to be spending his idle hours wishing he were American.

      • OWilson

        Your are nuts and delusional!

        I’ve never been unemployed! :)

        • Bart_R

          Canadian pretending to speak Mexican?

          So.. if you’re employed, does that mean you’re spreading hate and reading American tabloids on the Canadian taxpayer’s dime?

          I mean, looking at the time of your posts and comparing them to the time of day they’re made..

          Seems you’re not just a rent seeker, but a liar and/or a cheat.

          • OWilson

            Wrong again!

            Self employed, semi retired!

            Keep trying, troll! :)

          • Bart_R

            Self-employed, semi-retired?

            That’s just code for too obsolete to get full time work.

            And I’m to the right of you: I don’t brag about being a rent seeking parasite on the taxpayer.

            Clearly, the best way to get correct information out of you is not just to ask, as you seldom answer and are very seldom correct.

            How many protons in a carbon atom?

            Why?

            How does that number relate to the carbon electron shell orbital structure?

            How does that structure relate to the properties of molecular bonds in carbon- gases CO, CO2, CH4, with particular reference to radiative transfer physics, spectroscopy, and in the case of non-condensing CO2, shouldering? With particular reference to pH levels in solution in water? With particular reference to gibberellin plant hormones and crop nutrient density loss as CO2 levels increase? With like reference to soil fertility drop due like effects on soil bacteria and resultant conversion of soil nitrates to NOx pollutants by soil microbes?

            How do neutron:proton ratios in carbon allow scientists to differentiate plant from fossil CO2?

            What is weathering, with regard to returning CO2 from fossil back to mineral form?

            How did Lin Ostrom describe privatization of scarce, rivalrous, excludable goods?

            As Rubino (2013) proved weathering is scarce, Archer (2011) proved bleed-out rates for CO2 by weathering are rivalrous, and the BC Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Act (2007) proved weathering is excludable, explain why governments fail in their duty to enforce Market rents on fossil waste dumpers at point of sale?

            Go ahead, give that ‘correct information’ gimmick a try.

          • OWilson

            Trolls=dissemblers=swamp dwellers.

            You can’t afford my time! :)

          • Bart_R

            Who’s making assumptions now?

            Still only you.

            You said “ask”.

            When asked, you grow a yellow streak and run for the border.

            Hardly a surprise.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Mike Richardson

            Trolls=dissemblers=name callers=Ol’Wilson. LOL… You just engaged in the very activity you indicated defines a troll, yet you don’t think that makes you one? LMAO — I just love the total lack of irony you bring to these posts. You really should be proud, Wilson, but not because of any sense that you’re persuasive — quite the opposite. You lampoon the very positions you support, and for that, I thank you heartily, both for the laughs and for showing how ridiculous the far right truly is. :)

          • OWilson

            I’ll assume that because you are LOL and LMAO, you are not one of those pathetic lefties that need a group hug because you believed your own lies.

            Glad to see you are surviving and taking it one day at a time.! :)

            Just keep repeating “President Trump”, and gradually reality will begin to sink in!

          • Mike Richardson

            My mind remains open to the possibility, indeed the reality, that our world continues to warm while you crow about the rise to power of a fellow climate change denier. Sad that you consider this a victory, and blind yourself to what your own brand of political extremism has wrought in this country. But don’t worry — Trump will be welcomed with just as much warmth and respect by millions in this country as you and others have shown Obama for the past 8 years, at least until the impeachment.

          • OWilson

            Not crowing about the rise to power of a politician!

            Crowing about your arrogant certainty that he would never be President!

            I saw through the lies, and bull of your political masters.

            You didn’t!

            You couldn’t.

            Once again, it’s your worldview Mikey! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Wilson, I can manage to be non-partisan a lot better than you can, and have managed ethical dealings much, much, better than the incoming president, who’s going to be dodging a minefield of conflict of interest scenarios that could easily lead to impeachment. But please, rant and rave like the lunatic you are, and eventually someone might do the decent thing and get you the professional treatment you so clearly need. I might remind your loved ones, it only takes a couple of signatures…

          • OWilson

            What you show here are absurd fanatical left wing delusions, that never pan out.

            Only in your (present) government swamp could you ever be categorized as “rational”.

            You obviously can’t function in the real world. :)

            Especially a world in which even a left wing organ, like the WP, says is dead and buried, for a long time to come.

            Obama/Hillary/Slick Willy/Bernie/ Pelosi/Reid/Al Gore/Castro, and their hemorrhaging left wing Media outlets.

            It’s not only morning in America, it’s morning around the world!

            Wake up and smell the coffee! :)

            And, if, as you say, you “can” be non-partisan, you had better wish your new boss well in his efforts to unite your country, and free the slaves from your Democratic ghetto vote plantations :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Quite a bit of projection when you refer to anyone else around here as delusional. “Morning in America,” ” Democratic ghetto vote plantations? ” Yea, you might want a little less coffee and a lot more Prozac. 😉

  • BBQman

    Global temperatures have been higher in the recent past and the quantity of sea ice have always varied from year to year, see “Roger Vercel’s” writings, massive sea ice found floating in 1816 & 1817 as far south as the 40th parallel, for those same years “William Scoresby” found zero ice along the coast of Greenland between 74 & 75 degrees N, and let’s never forget that in 2010, 50 ships had to be freed by icebreakers off the coast of Stockholm in the Baltic.

    Here are some other dates when Global temperatures were higher than today, 1125ad, 75bc,1350bc, 1675bc, 2250bc, 3010bc, 3230bc, 3682bc, 4012bc, 4836bc, 5722bc, 6823bc, and 7268bc. Per the 2004 Greenland GISP ice core data.
    Also, testing methods used to determine what our assumed global CO2 levels were 200 years ago could easily be off by up to around 85 ppm, it is believed by many critical Thinkers that global CO2 levels back then could have been as high as 300 ppm or more, it’s hard to pinpoint due to the sloppiness of sparse regional sampling which in no way can be extrapolated into global results, and since the northern hemisphere has been recovering and warming back up since the Little Ice Age and its 600 year long impact which ended at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, of course our planet has been warming back up in a natural cycle of a bit less then 1 degree Celsius per century, thus allowing our Flora and Fauna to recover and produce more (CO2 at 280 ppm is to low for a healthy earth) CO2 as a result, which is good, keeping in the mind other sources and sinks, and natural degradation from extreme temperature lows above 3,000 meters most of the year within the range of the Hadley convection, it becomes obvious to even the most causal thinker that CO2 levels between 345 to 1,000 ppm can not have any kind of global greenhouse effect because of the rapid heat dissipation and degradation of the CO2.

    “During the Little Ice Age, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions.”

    The funny thing about the other times in our recent history, is that man was not spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, must have been because of our orbital eccentricities and Equatorial tilt which is influenced by magnetism, solar cycles, volcanic activity,our moon, rotation of our core, oceans conveyance and it’s influence on the jet stream which is the last stage climate driver for our earth..what will they think of next!

    • Robert

      Sources?
      “Also, testing methods used to determine what our assumed global CO2 levels were 200 years ago could easily be off by up to around 85 ppm, it is believed by many critical Thinkers that global CO2 levels back then could have been as high as 300 ppm or more.”

      • CB

        “Sources?”

        Gone missing…

        Barbie has re-posted this artifically-promoted nonsense a number of times now.

        I would say that counts as spam, wouldn’t you?

        “BBQMan (disqus_sRoSd74zZZ): Here are some other dates when Global temperatures were higher than today…”

        disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-2994037616

        • BBQman

          No spam CB, just talk about climate drivers and their impact during our history.

          • Robert

            Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy
            “ Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state. ”

            http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~sgw/ATMS321/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf

          • BBQman

            Earth will be safe and healthy between 345 to 1,000 ppm of atmospheric CO2, and I thought you were going to provide some proof of how CO2 is a climate driver, you have failed me again Robert, there is no quantifiable proof of CO2 being a climate driver in your link or comment.

          • Robert

            You and who else says : “Earth will be safe and healthy between 345 to 1,000 ppm of atmospheric CO2,…”

            Quote and cite. Like 11 yr olds know how to do.

          • BBQman
          • Robert

            Ah, such a non-response. Your stock of political posters.
            Which it seems you link to more often than science.
            Thanks.

          • Bart_R

            Still fighting the 2008 election in 2016?

            You seem to be suffering from chronic butthurt.

          • Mike Richardson

            Actually, you need the incoming electoral college elected president, not the outgoing twice-popularly elected president. Ol’ Donald’s demonstrably a pathological liar based on the many untruths he told prior to, during, and after the campaign. Remember “Birtherism?” The whopper he told about seeing “thousands of Muslims” celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey? The numerous fact-checked and failed statements from the debates? How about that wall on the border, which anyone with half a brain knows Mexico won’t pay for, we won’t build, and nobody can afford? Or his promise to jail Hillary, which would certainly accelerate any reciprocal legal action that might lead to his impeachment, and therefore has been also dropped? I’m not saying he won’t do terrible things, but he’s lied to you guys as much as anyone else, and only someone willing to delude themselves could consider Trump an honest and honorable person. Which I’m sure you are in fact, willing to do.

          • OWilson

            Still making political predictions, Mikey?

            Don’t you ever learn? :)

            (Pardon us if we consign them to the dung heap of history. :)

          • Mike Richardson

            So you are willing to delude yourself. No surprise there.

          • OWilson

            May your kids grow up to be conservatives ! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            More likely than not, my child will outgrow the selfishness typical for children, and use reason to find a more logical worldview somewhat left of center, as I did. Nothing would make me prouder as a parent than to see that kind of reasoning win out over the bile, irrationality, and close-minded prejudices that apparently led to your current state. In return, may I extend my warmest wishes to your descendants, who hopefully will reject your hyperpartisan ranting and raving as the obvious delusions they are, and remember you better for the person you were earlier in life. :)

          • OWilson

            Thank god, there’s not much chance of you brainwashing your child, when in real life, this is going on, “”CLINTON’S LOSS IS ONE MORE NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF CENTER-LEFT POLITICS IN THE WEST!” -Washington Post

            But you can get out the old books and tell your child about the good old days when Obama, Bernie, Al Gore, Hillary, Slick Willy, Fidel, Mao, Uncle Joe and the rest were big shots! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            No brainwashing is required when anyone with half a brain can study history and see the obvious failures of Republican policies like trickle down economics, which even now the Orange One plans to impose on this country (ironically, raising taxes on many of the blue collar voters who supported him, while giving tax breaks to himself and his cronies). No, my kid’s intelligent enough to figure these things out, though clearly there are those who can’t regardless of how many decades of life they accumulate. Politics generally swings on a pendulum in this country, so while you might not be around to witness it, it will eventually swing back around to correct the grievous mistakes we can expect from a Trump administration, assuming the country survives it in the first place.

          • OWilson

            Did it ever occur to you, chump, just why your “pendulum” swings?

            If communism, socialism, progressivism or liberalism actually worked, there would no longer be a need for a Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, BREXIT or a Trump.

            You would never have need for a conservative government ever again! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Actually, as with many things, you’ve gotten it backwards. While communism has been as abject a failure as trickle-down economics, other, more moderate versions of left-leaning movements have proven successful and usually are necessary to correct the colossal messes left by failed conservative administrations. But people have short memories, unfortunately, and keep making the same mistakes in different cycles. Some never learn.

          • OWilson

            Ah, I see, the great unwashed out there don’t listen to you. :)

            But, Mikey, if all they have to go by is the leftist tripe you post here, along with your ‘predictions’ :)
            why would they take you seriously? :)

            Politics 101

            Every left wing government eventually runs out of borrowed money.

            Then it’s time for the wealth producers.

            Note: Governments are NOT wealth producers, they are wealth parasites.

            Yes, I know even parasites in government “trickle down” their wages to the community at large, but it is not an efficient way to distribute resources, and leads to industrial and commercial dereliction, and of course, civil unrest!

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL… Cronyism?! Have you seen the prospective cabinet picks for Trump? The massive conflict of interest in his business holdings in foreign nations with which he will be negotiating treaties? Industrial and commercial dereliction can certainly be expected as well, if by dereliction, you mean allowing them to be derelict in protecting consumers, workers, and the environment. And we are already seeing civil unrest and hate crimes rising before Mr. Twitter Meltdown even takes office, due in part to his encouraging divisiveness and prejudice. But you’ve demonstrated an ability to dogmatically defend a proven failure in trickle-down economics, just like old school communists keep thinking their doctrines will work if we just give them one more try. Cutting Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, and numerous other programs that benefit the poor and working class to give more tax breaks to the mega-rich is truly deplorable, but I’m not surprised it doesn’t bother you. Likewise, I’m sure you’re delighted at the anti-science appointments Trump is making, and his plans to dismantle NASA monitoring of climate change, so annoying facts like the ones presented in the article above won’t be so easy to come by. Yes, there are parasites out there, and they will benefit greatly from the incoming administration.

        • Robert

          Only paper I know of claiming that is Beck. And he has 100+ppm jumps up and down. In decades.

          Funny how no one has written about where it goes and where it comes from……

    • Robert

      Source. You used quotemarks.
      ” “During the Little Ice Age, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods….”

      • BBQman

        History is my source Robert…do you know what that is?
        There are ample key search words in my post above, go do your own research, use your brain son.

        • Robert

          So. No research. No sources. Just your sayso.
          Got it.

          • BBQman

            Do your own research lazy.

          • Robert

            Done. Says you ideas have no traction, or no foundation. Whichever analogy you want to go with.

            Of course, you could post the DOI of your paper……

        • Robert

          Ah, so now you are acknowledging your plagiarism?

          • BBQman

            The reading of information, and connecting the dots to establish a tangible solution is not plagiarism young Robert, son I believe your problem is that you can not see the forest for the trees, I suggest a vacation for you, go up into the mountains for about a month and clear your head, then come back and we will attempt again to advance you over to another dimension. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a8d2c31c73ae9e247e54b4f8bf64969591dd43ef0718724f082825c94bd0a599.jpg

          • Robert

            You pasted in a paragraph from someone else”s writing. We’ve shown you where you copied it from.
            You didn’t cite it.
            Plagiarism.

            And, we noted, the author stated explicitly that your interpretation was wrong.

          • BBQman

            I suppose you don’t understand the “………….” Quotation makes that I added at the beginning and end to denote that it was written by others, that is not plagiarism silly little Robert, please try to behave yourself if you want to be advanced to another dimension at a later date. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b569d772a7f55dac047776a6ec8404749d54bc190bb358455c4ea5318565395f.jpg

          • Robert

            “How to avoid plagiarism

            When using sources in your papers, you can avoid plagiarism by knowing what must be documented.
            Specific words and phrases
            If you use an author’s specific word or words, you must place those words within quotation marks and you must credit the source.”

            http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_plagiarism.html

          • BBQman

            By my quotation marks, I fulfilled all that was necessary, you need to remember that as a free sovereign, I operate by the rules of common sense, not the rules you follow.

          • Robert

            “By my quotation marks, I fulfilled all that was necessary…”
            Nope

            “How to avoid plagiarism

            When using sources in your papers, you can avoid plagiarism by knowing what must be documented.
            Specific words and phrases
            If you use an author’s specific word or words, you must place those words within quotation marks and you must credit the source.”

            http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_plagiarism.html
            My bolding

          • BBQman

            Your rules not mine son!

          • Robert

            Actually, everyone’s rules. Basic intellectual honesty.

          • BBQman

            Is that the same intellectual honesty that gave us a $21 trillion debt, open borders, colleges ran by communist leftist and an unconstitutional unaccountable bureaucracy Robert, no thanks. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/31f10307e937d84879edb7e190953f7b3a6ec010d4a7be46278541fc0fc2cd56.jpg

          • Robert

            Thanks for showing your level of dishonesty as well as your efforts to change the subject.

            The author of your plagiarized piece specifically states that the work does not support natural causes for the observations. You didn’t bother to cite it so others might not see that.

          • BBQman

            I was only useing it for historical accuracy to compare it today’s climate anomalies, there is no reason he and I should draw the same concussions about climate drivers, I was only interested in the dates and events, I see no problem with that, you would have to be pretty dim to see it any other way, as I have said, you can’t see the forest for the trees son.

          • Mike Richardson

            Yeah, you haven’t seen a gravy train of corruption yet, but between nepotism, conflict of interest, and blatant disregard for transparency and numerous federal laws, you’re about to see it in the upcoming administration. Nobody’s above the law, however. Should be fun watching the house of cards fall within the first year or so of President Cheeto’s administration.

          • BBQman

            Off topic Mike, the question is about what should be our model for intellectual honesty?

          • Mike Richardson

            The opposite of what you’ve shown. Actually presenting sources, discussing your theory and data that supports it, and allowing for peer review. Something President Cheeto will likely not approve of, since it wouldn’t support an administration built on lies.

          • BBQman

            I have outlined the sequential order of our primary climate drivers, I can’t help it if you can’t keep up, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62c81471479afebf1e07f2af2516b754ff3ddd4802984c19c3df45468a4af24d.png and please stop being so dramatic, Trump will exceed your wildest dreams!

          • Mike Richardson

            If by wildest dreams, you mean nightmares of fascism and/or nuclear war, I certainly hope not. Actually, my wildest dreams involve a swift end to his administration with impeachment and possible prison time, if karma works out right for him.

          • BBQman

            Ok john podesta, I Hear ya, but you are only projecting and have no idea what President Trump will do. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c81a1fe88d515378ad955590772ab3915b6cf2a71630ad88be860f2181f5653b.jpg

          • OWilson

            Keep predicting Mikey!

            We’ll keep laughing! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Keep supporting fascism, Ol’Wilson! We’ll keep pitying you. And laughing, but feeling bad about it, since one shouldn’t laugh at the mentally ill. At least we sometimes feel bad about it.

          • OWilson

            “Supporting Fascism?”

            Did you get that from your Little Red Book?

            LOL

          • Mike Richardson

            When you think it’s a good idea to lock up folks raising awareness of the problems of climate change as “alarmists,” comparable to shouting ” Fire! ” in a crowded theater; when you believe left-leaning political opponents also need to be jailed, but don’t have a problem with blatant corruption, nepotism, and lying from the right; when you stereotype religious, ethnic, gender, and political groups and demonize those groups; and when you do not denounce violence as a means of addressing differences with these groups, then yes, you have placed yourself much closer to the definition of fascism than I have ever approached to communism. In fact, your “Little Red Book” reference further illustrates your own much greater tendency to equate any political opposition only to its most extreme form, while ignoring just how extreme your own views have become, at least as demonstrated regularly here.

        • Robert

          Actually, here is your source:
          http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

          And this is what is at the top of the page
          “Note to general public:

          My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to “prove” the current global warming is due to a natural cycle.
          Please view Global Warming: Man or Myth which addresses many of the questions asked about the human impact on the current climate change in a very simple format. The climate change being observed today is unprecedented in modern times and can only be explained by the rapid increase of greenhouse gases by human activities. There are no known natural forces that could have caused the modern climate change.”

          • OWilson

            “My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists”

            My position on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost might be the same as the overwhelming majority of international Catholic Priests.

            Proves NOTHING!

          • Robert

            Actually, yes. Your claim does ‘prove’ something. Or, rather more accurately, provides a piece of evidence.

            Your claiming agreement w priests implies a bit of of agreement with the ‘science is religion/belief=research ‘ denialist claptrap. Your claim also implies using a secondary source as a false equivalence.

            The author of the piece you quoted as support specifically says
            “Note to general public:

            My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to “prove” the current global warming is due to a natural cycle.
            Please view Global Warming: Man or Myth which addresses many of the questions asked about the human impact on the current climate change in a very simple format. The climate change being observed today is unprecedented in modern times and can only be explained by the rapid increase of greenhouse gases by human activities. There are no known natural forces that could have caused the modern climate change.”

            And you launched against only the first part of his argument, ignoring the broad supporting evidence pointed to in the rest of the paras.

    • Robert

      Your unsorted quote

      http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

      Starts w
      “Note to general public:

      My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to “prove” the current global warming is due to a natural cycle.
      Please view Global Warming: Man or Myth which addresses many of the questions asked about the human impact on the current climate change in a very simple format. The climate change being observed today is unprecedented in modern times and can only be explained by the rapid increase of greenhouse gases by human activities. There are no known natural forces that could have caused the modern climate change.” my bolding

      • BBQman

        So do you deny that we had just as many if not more climate anomalies before the Industrial Revolution, if you would read more history, you will see that our climate patterns today are no different then our climate patterns prior to the IR…keep studying Robert, you will eventually get there, good Lad!
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/201759871f16fd84516d92ca46c55fd16bb6b503249124df3a4b01e861b29c10.jpg

        • CB

          “our climate patterns today are no different then our climate patterns prior to the IR”

          Right. If you understand polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, how likely is it they will today?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fdb450739dd94d1cbe61e6c829455c5931a1ac1eec95482b68c6c019c0a5c32a.png

          • BBQman

            Talk about spam, you have posted this same nonsense to me a hundred times now, please come up with some original thoughts sweetie, repetitive lies and propaganda does not work anymore. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb8666748cdd5e87aa099a0c97686dd9bb61ff051770ff68c9e9fbcbb0e8b45d.gif

          • CB

            “you have posted this same nonsense”

            I have pointed you to that science before.

            If you think NASA is publishing “nonsense”, where are you getting your information, Barbie? If you refuse to supply us with the source of your information, why should you be allowed to gum up threads like this one with your unsupported, artificially-promoted opinions?

            “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 gigatonnes per year.”

            climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

          • BBQman

            CB, I have been reading and storing information in my mind for about 50 years now, you should do the same and stop depending on your links that are not even quantifiable and usually agenda driven, you have a brain, try to use it. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6970dc9e17b87bff3727d9a843a822cabedeb3aaa8088e189aba0a8500f101d.jpg

          • CB

            “I have been reading and storing information in my mind for about 50 years now”

            From where, sweetheart? If you refuse to support your deranged claims with evidence, why should your artificially-promoted nonsense be allowed to clutter this thread?

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201501_gistemp/annual_temperature_anomalies_2014.png

          • BBQman

            My views are my own, I see what our actual climate drivers are, and CO2 after 345ppm is not one of them.

            If you want to better prepare for climate change, study the effects of electromagnetic forces on the directional flow of our molten core.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fcfb1a2599ac79292067896aa85f0a640f40ddd930e5717e8df988d824ba5e97.jpg

          • Bart_R

            Can you set out a list of bridges you’ve had a hand in building?

            So people who can do math know what not to drive across.

            Incidentally, do you still think 4,000 is 2,500 times 400?

          • david russell

            Bar_R is a troll as well, but his views are so loony, he’s ineffective. His meme is “Pay what you owe.” What a kook.

          • Bart_R

            Bayesian Additive Regression Trees in R.

            Surely you want to know what bridges were put up by one of your tribe, so you don’t inadvertently drive across one?

            Or do you believe that 2,500 times 400 is 4000?

            I see from your butchery of Myrhe’s that could be a real possibility.

            Say, you haven’t built any bridges you aren’t telling us about, have you?

          • david russell

            See what I mean!!?? Total loon. Total gibberrish.

          • Bart_R

            So, you do believe 2,500 times 400 is 4000 then?

          • david russell

            I’ll be prepared to agree 2500 x 400 is not 4000.

          • Bart_R

            BBQman thinks 2500 x 400 is 4000.

            And yet you support him in that claim, while knowing it false.

          • david russell

            Either you don’t read what I wrote, or you have a bad memory. My response to BBQ-Man was in effect, “I am only responsible for what I write, not what BBQ-man writes.”

            What’s wrong with you? Oh, I forgot: you are a kook.

          • Bart_R

            Memory? I have Disqus history. Who trusts his own memory over written evidence?

            Someone who https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3010479527 mistakes his responses to one person for responses to a different one, perhaps?

            On a page littered with BBQman’s grossly bad math, claiming egregiously, “..CO2 which is 1/2,500 of water vapor in atmosphere..” we don’t see you taking issue with that error, but rather introducing arguments based on misapplying Myrhe’s general 30-year climate estimate to individual years.

            If you’re going to inject yet more bad mathematics into a discussion, you may want to take more pains to separate your particular brand of mistake from the general cloud of mathematically vapid claims already in the comments.

            So I do thank you for agreeing BBQman’s math is bad. Now can you agree Myrhe wasn’t talking about single years?

            That the average of 10 years is not the same as the rate of individual years?

            That regions with a known higher impact from global warming (so much so that the phrases ‘Arctic amplification’ and ‘polar amplification’ are widely used) will have more temperature rise than the global average?

            That multi-year ice (which once lasted decades, whereby we know the 1920’s and 1930’s were nowhere near as warm in the Arctic as present warming because of samples of 1920’s ice lasting into the 1950’s when core samples were collected) has cumulatively shrunk over the decades, eroded by increasing temperatures, so what happens in the Arctic does not depend entirely on any single year?

            That climate is complex, so it is as invalid to claim that what happens in a single spot is due only to a single factor as it is to claim what happens in a broad region has nothing to do with a dominant factor?

          • david russell

            Thanks for confirming exactly what I said. I don’t know why you did this, as it makes you look foolish, but perhaps I should congratulate you confirming my claim.

            Then comically you go on to attack BBQ-man, which you’ve just confirmed my not stating my agreement with. Why are you posting all this to me, instead of him?

            Why would you think Myhre’s 30 year formula not apply to a 10 year stretch? And where do you get that the formula “only applies to 30 years?”

            The 1920’s to the 1940’s were indeed as much a warming period as the current. But of course the current warming period (really the mid-1970s to mid-1990s warming, as there’s been no actual global warming for the past 18 years) melted additional Greenland ice perhaps because the intervening post WWII cool period didn’t build up the ice pack to it’s pre-1920’s levels.. So your whole blather about ice cores is irrelevant.

            If you don’t think CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the troposphere, they I can only conclude that you think polar ppms are less than average because there has to be some delay in the CO2 from humans working its way to the poles. But then CO2 would have EVEN LESS impact on the polar warming as observed.

            I find nothing in your above post compelling or even plausible after your diatribe against BBQman.

          • Bart_R

            tl;dnr

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            URa0

          • Bart_R

            Just like a deadbeat to talk trash while picking pockets.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Cold Miser

            Sounds familiar. Apparently, evenminded accuses me of making comments I’ve never made, but feel he’s correctly entitled to do so based off upvotes I make. He actually had the audacity to claim it doesn’t matter that I didn’t say what he accused me of saying.

          • BBQman

            I never said that, crawl back under your rock BartR.

          • Bart_R

            You said that there is 2,500 times as much WV in the atmosphere as there is CO2, a physical impossibility.

            CO2 is over 400 ppmv; water vapor averages about 4,000 ppmv.

            You are clearly claiming 2,500 times 400 is 4,000.

            And you flee and lie when confronted with your bad math.

            “..CO2 which is only 1/2,500th of water vapor..” https://disqus.com/home/channel/science3d/discussion/channel-science3d/trump_picks_top_climate_skeptic_to_lead_epa_transition/#comment-3000319382

            The more you write, the more how wrong you are becomes clear.

            Now, about that list of bridges you’ve had a hand in building.

            That is, if any are still standing?

          • BBQman

            The have not finished the math, where are your calculations for the amount of CO2 that gets caught in the sink form the 500 trillion tons of annual rainfall….your over simplification of my remarks without taking all other factors into account is pretty disturbing.

          • Bart_R

            Liquid water isn’t water vapor.

            You didn’t say solar energy anywhere in your claims, and the math of that still wouldn’t balance to your numbers.

            A grown man with a spine would admit he’s wrong, own up to his mistake, apologize and move on.

            You? You’re just being absurd.

            Behave like a silly spoiled child on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • BBQman

            I’m afraid you’re not able to connect enough of the dots BartR, I can’t get you to open your eyes to other the dimensions and components of our actual climate drivers, CO2 not being one of them, I have failed you….you may have the last word, time for me to move on without you, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c05427b963a6bdb648209d3e8ce1df2c9a8b49362c38f1ecf125f8caaeeb2b6.jpg we are done.

          • Cecillia

            That is cute, BBQman!

          • BBQman

            I’m glad someone with a sense of humor stopped by, the AGW gang are a bunch of sourpusses around here!

            How’s it going Cecillia, hope your Thanksgiving goes well!

          • Cecillia

            Hello! How can anyone not find that funny? :-)
            Getting ready to join with family for Thanksgiving. Thank you, BBQman, for the well wishes.
            I’d like to extend the best wishes to you and your loved ones for a Beautiful and Happy Thanksgiving Day! :-)

          • BBQman
          • Cecillia

            Thank you, ever so kindly, for the beautiful flowers and butterfly. It is greatly appreciated, BBQman! :-)

          • BBQman

            Your welcome, but I may have gotten it from you or blue many moons ago, I thought it was nice and should be seen again!

          • Cecillia

            Lovely! Encore comments are always great! :-)

          • goofy

            Attaching a note to your last post BBQman…….Happy Thanksgiving to you! And PLEASE be sure that any BBQing you do, absolutely DOES NOT destroy our climate!!! HAHAHAHAHA

          • BBQman

            I did not realize there are 7 volcanic hot spots under the Antarctic and they exist at the Arctic as well, you know there is also an estimate out there that the assumed 100 million tons of CO2 vented by volcanos and their smaller unseen and odorless side vents every year, but new estimates are saying the number is more like 600 million tons a year and that it has probably been within that range +or- of boundaries for centuries, that is a very likely reason for about 90% of the ice lose, good catch, to bad the everything is CO2 crowd won’t see it.

          • Spazmo the Satisfied

            Antarctica is melting ?!?! We should have a riot ! where we can cry loudly as we run around in groups of 5 or 6 to beat people up one at a time !! lol . Happy Thanksgiving,goofy . Back in a few days :)

          • goofy

            Happy Thanksgiving to you also, Spazmo. Going away for a few days? I’ll watch for you on the news, in those crowds rioting over the melting ice sheets! Why, Ice sheets have civil rights as well! It says so right in the Constitution……yes sir…..it does!

          • Bart_R

            Except those things are considered.

            Volcanoes have been around forever, and seldom vary very much across a continent. Seismic activity doesn’t correlate well with ice mass loss.

            Change in CO2 level does correlate.

            Pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you do.

          • Bart_R

            “A man may smile and smile and be a villain.”

            http://shushi168.com/data/out/134/36557800-joker-pics.png

          • Lorialpine

            Wishes for a Happy Thanksgiving to you, BBQman. Thank you for being correct about the cooling period that started last month. I was counting on it!

          • BBQman

            Thank you, and I hope y’alls Thanksgiving is a joyful day as well!

          • RubyMontana
          • Lorialpine

            Ha! Cat in a hot tin pan!
            Enjoy yours too, Ruby. Thanks!

          • RubyMontana

            YIKES!
            Great play on words!
            :)

          • Bart_R

            https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/4241/2736/original.jpg

            Just be sure to check if BBQman had a hand in building any bridges you have to cross on your way to visit relatives.

          • Lorialpine

            I’m certain he did, being a brilliant contractor among the many other hats he wears, Bart. At least we have bridges still to cross, as we haven’t burned any.
            In the spirit of the season, I bid you peace.

          • Bart_R

            In the spirit of the season, I bid you stay on topic. It’s common courtesy, and not passive aggressive.

            And while I recognize some don’t think courtesy is important for the season of family gatherings, and the favorite sport of many this time of year is passive aggression, you may find not everyone is as comfortable with blatant manipulation as you seem to be.

            And while you may be certain there are bridges (for now), you’re talking about someone so brilliant he found a way for 2,500 times 400 to equal 4,000. So take a picture of those bridges. The picture will last longer.

            2016 smashed the record for global temperatures, continuing the pattern set by 2015 and ten of the last 11 years, even La Nina years. The Arctic sea ice melt http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ actually re-started in November, and sea ice is at a staggeringly record low for this time of year.

            The fossil wastes you dump? Those use up the scarce weathering power of everyone else’s air, water and land to absorb CO2 and turn it back to mineral form. My scarce weathering is being trespassed on by your fossil waste dumping. Your scarce weathering goods are being trespassed on by BBQman’s fossil waste dumping. Some dump far more than others, so there is no fairness in these trespasses. Fossil waste dumpers who do not pay Market rents for the fossil disposal they take without consent are simply thieves.

            And if you want to sit down to Thanksgiving dinner with a pack of thieves, cackling over cat pictures while you steal, then I bid you peace.

            And pay what you owe.

          • Lorialpine

            Surely, you don’t know me at all. “blatant manipulation”? I was simply going through BBQman’s profile looking for a spot to insert my wishes to him. I happen to find him very informed on the topic, while I myself am certainly no expert. Excuse the heck outta me for not being “on topic”.

            “Take a picture, it’ll last longer”? I guess you’re sitting at the kid’s table today. Will there be play doh and coloring books?

            SMH.

          • Bart_R

            Aw. How touching.

            You may find him ‘informed on the topic’, but that is not the case.

            Misinformed, and misinforming, a person driven by something other than a desire for truth to tell something other than fact.

            It’s easy to understand how that might happen to a person. There are more important things in a person’s life than how science works, or what’s happening outside their town. The consequences of unpleasant facts are sometimes easier to deal with by making bargains with the devils of procrastination and deficit, promising anything tomorrow must pay to avoid paying today.

            This time of year especially we see examples of people diving into debt that next year will strangle them.

            And how much easier when it’s someone else’s money they’re spending, who never demanded payment before?

            When you dump your fossil wastes from your tailpipe or smokestack, you incur a weathering debt from the air, waters and lands of others. Weathering is scarce, and you do not own all those properties, nor do you dump fossil in proportion to your property holdings. In other words, you’re a weathering thief, if you do not pay property owners a fair Market rent for fossil dumping.

            And if you want to simply go through profiles inserting wishes to thieves, far be it from someone in the topic thread to engage you in something you’d rather not think about.

            Congratulate each other on thievery on Thanksgiving day all you want. On your own time.

            Otherwise, pay what you owe.

          • https://goo.gl/images/UPihY6 Wishinonehandism

            Lmao

          • Bart_R

            Lorialpine BBQman 5 days ago
            Speaking of fluck wits, I’ve got your good ol’ pal Bart R straight up my keister today. What an azz! Anyhoo, Happy Thanksgiving again, BBQman. Keep up the good fight!

            Look, we get it. You’re hawt for BBQ. And that’s your perogative. Your keister is your business.

            And often the abused like you side with their abusers, that’s no mystery.

            But if you ever decide you don’t want to be with a liar who abuses and deceives you, there are helplines you can call and shelters you can go to.

          • https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/the-shot-heard-round-the-world/ delta.charlie.foxtrot

            I am ready to pay what I owe. To whom would I send my check?

            You are quick to barge in on someone’s conversation so let me cut in.

            You educated boys seem to think your the only ones who’s sh%t don’t stink. Do you think the electricity you use, the food you eat, the computers, cell phones, cars, clothing, all are gifts from mother earth? Do you not use these items? Where is your check? The earth has consumed every civilization that ever existed and will consume this one too so don’t get so over-heated, your fossil dump might increase.

            Maybe you also should take a few lessons in manners and how you treat other people that are not engaging you in conversation…. you effing jerk. If you are so worried about weather patterns and mother earth why are you wasting your time here? Why aren’t you out saving the world? Maybe you should clean up your fossil dump before dumping on someone else. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4751929d942131a3013e95ba49070f40341135400d9db33fbd9c815513faea99.jpg

          • Bart_R

            Before I answer your excellent question, and it shows real integrity that you stand behind your debts, let me ask in turn, why all the snarl?

            You are quick to barge in on someone’s conversation so let me cut in.

            Barge in? The name of the service is DISQUS, not STFU; you’re on topic and as welcome to engage in discussion here as I am, that’s the whole point of Disqus forums, and thanks to the mods for supporting that.

            I certainly didn’t fault Lorialpine for barging in; I did fault her for off-topic meowsing the thread, which is just rude, but encouraged her to engage in the actual Disqusion.

            You educated boys seem to think your the only ones who’s sh%t don’t stink.

            I’m not sure whether to be more insulted by being called ‘boy’, being called ‘educated’, being associated with some group of your imagining, or being accused of ignoring my own faults. That’s quite a load of manure to dump on anyone who is a complete stranger to you. Where’d the hostility come from, dcf?

            Do you think the electricity you use, the food you eat, the computers, cell phones, cars, clothing, all are gifts from mother earth?

            An educated person would accuse you of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy; you insist a person jump of a bridge just because their enemy does it too.

            Food isn’t fossil waste dumping. Computers aren’t fossil waste dumping. All the gifts of your bizarre Gaia worship are not on topic.

            Do you not use these items? Where is your check? The earth has consumed every civilization that ever existed and will consume this one too so don’t get so over-heated, your fossil dump might increase.

            Maybe you also should take a few lessons in manners and how you treat other people that are not engaging you in conversation…. you effing jerk. If you are so worried about weather patterns and mother earth why are you wasting your time here? Why aren’t you out saving the world? Maybe you should clean up your fossil dump before dumping on someone else.

            Maybe if you took the time to look at the big picture before calling names, you’d appear less effed up.

            As for where to send the check? Support the Whitehouse-Schatz American Opportunity Carbon Fee bill, and your fellow citizens will inform you of which Americans are takers, and which are makers. You send the check to the makers.

          • Lorialpine

            You’re having a nice steak for dinner tonight as a token of my appreciation. I’ll have Waylon’s!

          • Bart_R

            So, are you his Twitter wife? His Snapchat wife? Facebook wife?

            Because from all appearances, you’re BBQman’s Disqus wife.

            What sort of triangular family thing is this you meowsers have going on?

            Don’t answer; it’s off topic, and no one could care less.

            Pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you do.

          • Lorialpine

            “Twitter wife”? Never lowered our standards to twatter. We had a good laugh at your expense.
            Married 35 years and 10 days. One of the few husband/wife teams here. I was cordial to you, now here’s where I lose my Lady Hat.
            Eff off, Loser. Check’s in the mail.
            Merry Christmas.
            Does it taste like…
            BURNING!

          • Bart_R

            At my expense?

            Bwahahahaha.

            Then we all laughed. You don’t realize you’re being laughed at, too?

            Typical meowser sense of what words like cordial mean.

            Tell us, 2016 is the hottest year on record, by a huge margin, replacing 2015; you did that to the world, with your fossil waste dumping. you don’t even pay weathering rents on the fossil waste disposal you use, making you a deadbeat; and you go around the Interwebs sabotaging and meowsing and being a turkey like you’re proud of it with your merry little band: is that what you want to be remembered for?

          • BBQman

            Good morning Lorialpine!
            BartR loves to play the false indignation game, he’s an eternal victim of his own lack of critical thinking skills….oh, and he gets his panties in a wad when you ignore him, he’s like a 14 year old whining for the latest video game, or permission to go out on a school night, no doubt you have had experience with these types before. I just ignore him!

            The other problem is that bart, nor his little friends have the ability to write out a short summary that tells us how CO2 drives the climate!
            They are really hung up on that one!

          • Lorialpine

            Good Evening, BBQman!
            Yes, he had to scour a weeks worth of discussion to re-insert himself. You’re right, and I’m done with him. I don’t usually engage in such stuff anyway.
            I hope you have an enjoyable and productive week.

          • Merlin Ti

            Hello, dear one….this will be here but a moment and I tend to doubt anyone will even notice, let alone mind. It’s merely my way of thanking you for all you’ve done on my behalf…may I inquire, do you actually read all my posts you upvote? If so, then you know me rather well by now….*smile

            I adore your kindness and sincerely hope you never change…(((Lori))).

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RYUZT57XA

          • Lorialpine

            Hi, Merlin. Thank you for that lovely song. I’m too old to go changing now! I like you just the way you are, too. A very kind gentleman. And Yes, I read EVERY post before I upvote it, even if it’s something that goes way over my head, as long as it sounds reasonable. Sometimes I have to pass by some I find foul or in bad taste, no matter who posted it. And I’m running out of time to upvote smiley faces and LOL’s unless I know what they’re LOL’ing about, but I enjoy all my virtual pals here, always. Not quite sure what I’ve done on your behalf, but you’re welcome. Thank you, my friend.

          • Merlin Ti

            Oh….just noticed you’re on the phone….

          • Merlin Ti

            It told me you were typing…then it went away….*grin

          • Lorialpine

            The phone rang… :)

          • Lorialpine

            How will I find you now if you’ve gone private?

          • Merlin Ti

            I’m only private to respect you….when all done here, I’ll go public.

          • Lorialpine

            Okee dokee, then. I’ll be looking for ya’.

          • Merlin Ti

            You are being simply incredible, lady…if you ever need someone to talk with, me.

          • Merlin Ti

            I had no idea just how shy you are, Lori…need not be with me.

          • Merlin Ti

            If you feel finished, simply upvote this and I shall delete and go.

          • https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/the-shot-heard-round-the-world/ delta.charlie.foxtrot

            He is just another no class bum, that has no friends and is ashamed of how his life has turned out. People like him seem to have a huge hole right in the middle of their heart and all the hate they have just can’t fill it. Have a nice day sweetheart.

          • Bart_R

            To quote someone I’m certain you agree with, “Surely, you don’t know me at all.”

            Maybe you believe you’re being chivalrous, riding to the defense of a damsel in distress. I see no evidence Lorialpine is such a weakling as to need such a futile and fumbled gesture.

            As for hate? Dude. Have a look at your profile pic.

            Meowsers. Proud of making no sense. Offended when called on it.

            Pay what you owe.

          • https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/the-shot-heard-round-the-world/ delta.charlie.foxtrot

            She happens to be my wife… jerk, and if you think bulling someone is OK because of some fake, phony, fraud global warming crap that is backed by fraudulent scientists, paid by a N A Z I named Soros then it is you that is being a fool. Oh, so sorry child, I didn’t mean to go off topic. Cram it clown. I almost forgot Merry F*cking.

            I got your payment hanging.

          • Bart_R

            Meowsers.

            You call reminding people of good manners ‘bulling’?

            You want to talk about the science, by all means. Make a scientific point on a scientific basis.

            It’s easy. Here’s how: you point to all the observations, without more assumptions or exceptions than the minimum necessary to infer an explanation that fits the broadest scope possible, and until a new observation lets you amend or renew that explanation, you treat it as exact.

            Any climate observations and inferences you’d like to share?

            Maybe since you’re tossing the big words around, you’d like to point to what court made a ruling of fraud, while you’re at it?

            No?

            As for paid by, Fourier, Foote, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Hogbom, Callendar, Plass, Lamb, Kealing all did their work before Soros was even born, and even a billionaire couldn’t afford to pay off the tens of thousands of scientists producing over ten thousand new climate science scholarship a year worldwide in peer-reviewed journals.

            You sound wrong, rude and weak.

          • https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/the-shot-heard-round-the-world/ delta.charlie.foxtrot

            I would usually not waste my time on such, but since you asked I will engage:

            1. The earth is cooler now than when the dinosaurs roamed and warmer than the ice age, this is a natural occurrence not human created.

            2. The planets in our solar system have surface temperatures that are rising as well as earth’s temperature.

            3. Sun spots have a direct influence on warming.

            4. The largest emitter of CO2 is the oceans. The earth warms, because of sun spots and the oceans releases CO2. The earth’s temperatures do not rise because of CO2 but rises because of these sun spots.

            5. Global warming is scientific theory, not scientific law, and as long as it is a theory and because man is not perfect, than the science of global warming is not settled. Until that time I will error on the side of caution and not become a victim to tyranny of the majority or science.

            6. Fraud is rampant everywhere. You quoted above from scripture and as a Christian you can’t deny it. I know it, you know it and so does Jesus.
            Here are a few:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leaked-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html

            http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/263889/al-gores-environmental-scam-funded-george-soros-daniel-greenfield

            http://healthwyze.org/tidbits/249-al-gore-sued-by-30000-scientists-for-global-warming-fraud

            Merry Christmas, it’s looking like it’s gonna be a white one.

          • Bart_R

            There you go! The ability to speak to the actual topic at hand; It’s not so hard.

            1. The earth is cooler now than when the dinosaurs roamed and warmer than the ice age, this is a natural occurrence not human created.

            We only really know anything at all about the climate of the times of dinosaurs and ice ages through the works of scientists. You couldn’t have even formed the words and thoughts in your claim if not for their work. Among the scientists who had most to do with the knowledge of such climates and their changes was H. H. Lamb, who six decades ago roughly mapped paleoclimates and used Law of Consequence reasoning to prove climate changes by forcings, that those forcings are knowable, and that when comparing the size and scope of various forcings even the most skeptical conservative with even as little data as was had in his lifetime must acknowledge that human activities like land use and air emissions are among climate forcings.

            It took less than a decade for science to confirm Svante Arrhenius’ calculations that CO2 would be among the strongest influences in raising global temperature through raising water vapor thresholds as a positive feedbacl, although in that decade Ed Lorenz showed that first order forcings in complex weather systems could have non-linear effects at some time scales along the way toward new overall equilibrium state. That’s why both ‘AGW’ and ‘climate change’ have been used in these discussions for over half a century.

            But since it’s impossible to have a powerful human-caused forcing and not see climate change from it by the Law of Consequence, and fossil waste dumping is a powerful forcing, it’s impossible to call the current climate change natural on the facts.

            2. The planets in our solar system have surface temperatures that are rising as well as earth’s temperature.

            Some planets do. Some don’t. The evidence for the temperature changes on other planets is pretty minimal compared to the mountains of evidence for human caused climate change, but the timing of start and end of warming isn’t consistent. You’ve identified a red herring.

            3. Sun spots have a direct influence on warming.

            Sun spots once correlated with global temperature changes on the Hale Cycle. This was supported well by the evidence. Until six decades ago, when the correlation disappeared. In signal analytics, these disappearances of small (less than about 10% of the total intensity of the variance at the time) signals into the noise range happens when a new factor overwhelms the cause of the noise, or squelches it. Fossil waste dumping has squelched the sun spot signal.

            We can even use this phenomenon to estimate that fossil waste dumping six decades ago was more than twenty times more powerful than the influence of sun spots.

            Once again, the data and the facts disprove your claim.

            4. The largest emitter of CO2 is the oceans. The earth warms, because of sun spots and the oceans releases CO2. The earth’s temperatures do not rise because of CO2 but rises because of these sun spots.

            Rubino et al (2013) showed that regardless of background surface CO2 levels, 100% of the rise in CO2 levels is from fossil, by isotope analyses:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/241f0cd4be77fd90c811f9f2f9a13063dfba9018448ef94f3068df78e52c3417.jpg

            The ocean is part of the short term carbon cycle. It’s natural and normal for the ocean to go through a large amount of CO2 in the cycle. It’s neither natural nor in the long run sustainable for fossil minerals to be burned and outgassed faster than weathering and lignification can sequester CO2 back into mineral form.

            Weathering and lignification are ‘fruits of the land’ in the terms of 1776’s Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. There’s a bottleneck in weathering and lignification, making them scarce goods in the Market. It takes thousands of human lifetimes for CO2 at these unnatural levels to bleed out through weathering and lignification back to fossil form. Fossil goods are excludable, so fossil waste dumping is excludable.

            By introducing the topic of the ocean, you’ve introduced the topic of paying what you owe for weathering and lignification, a fair Market rent, due to every land owner and everyone with interest in air and water.

            5. Global warming is scientific theory, not scientific law, and as long as it is a theory and because man is not perfect, than the science of global warming is not settled. Until that time I will error on the side of caution and not become a victim to tyranny of the majority or science.

            Pseudoscience isn’t science. There’s a very simple rule for knowing if something is or isn’t science: “Hold exact the fit inferred from all observation with least assumption or exception on greatest scope possible (but no farther than possible), until new observation allow amended or new fit.”

            Global warming is the best fit for observation. Therefore, by the same science as Newton and Einstein upheld, it is the truth. Now, you post-truthers might not feel good about that, but your feelings don’t interest anyone compared to your failure to pay your rent.

            And if you think truth is tyrannical, you haven’t realized how abject being a slave to lies has made you.

            6. Fraud is rampant everywhere. You quoted above from scripture and as a Christian you can’t deny it. I know it, you know it and so does Jesus.

            Funny, I talk to Jesus all the time. He’s never mentioned you to me.

            When I say ‘fraud’, knowing it’s a crime, I say it after the courts have ruled, or the crook has admitted his fraud. (Say by paying $25 million to people he’s defrauded.)

            I don’t go around muddying people’s names otherwise, as being a Christian, bearing false witness is a sin to me.

            So links to people who embody Pro-6:16-19?

            Not worth clicking on.

            Pay what you owe.

          • https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/the-shot-heard-round-the-world/ delta.charlie.foxtrot

            Too long / didn’t read. The truth doesn’t take a 1000 words, 100 years of study and billions of dollars paying for it. As long as there is uncertainty there can be no consensus.

          • BBQman

            Well said!

          • https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/the-shot-heard-round-the-world/ delta.charlie.foxtrot

            Thanks BBQman.

          • Bart_R

            Bwawk-bwawk-bwawk!

            Science holds exact the fit inferred from all observation given least assumptions or exceptions on broadest scope possible, but no more than possible, until new observation allows amended or new inference.

            31 words, if you don’t count the chicken sounds mocking your yellow streak.

            There’s always uncertainty. Consensus doesn’t matter to science. We hold to be true what can be inferred from observation. Everything else is paralysis by analysis, logical fallacy, and lie.

            Someone who rejects 100 years of study because he’s a coward?

            Not really the guy to be lecturing on truth.

            Pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you do.

          • https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/the-shot-heard-round-the-world/ delta.charlie.foxtrot

            You said: “Science holds exact the fit inferred from all observation given least assumptions or exceptions on broadest scope possible, but no more than possible, until new observation allows amended or new inference”.

            You left out the part about excluding false data from faulty computer programs. Let me put it a different way: garbage in garbage out. No consensus on human caused global warming. The sky is not falling Chicken Liberal.

          • Bart_R

            I said it?

            Oh, did you get the impression that was me?

            No, no. That was Isaac Newton, 300 years ago, in Latin, except the “but no more than possible” clause; that was from Albert Einstein 100 years ago. They left out nothing.

            GIGO is the acronym that once meant ‘garbage in, garbage out’, but as any competent computer professional knows it has for the last quarter century meant ‘Garbage In, Gospel Out’, because of verification and validation.

            If you’re claiming false data and faulty computer programs, then you’ll be able to list lines of faulty code, and errors in the V&V procedures. Or you’re just bearing false witness. So, which lines of code are you referring to?

            Science doesn’t need consensus; consensus is a product created for courts to support the Daubert Test. That mark has been met and exceeded, and the courts have been recognizing AGW for years at the highest levels.

            The Market only cares about the consensus of individual exchanges of buyers and sellers. Let the Market determine the scarcity rent on weathering and lignifying, and pay what you owe.

          • Last Man Standing

            Great post!

          • WaylonII

            Bart, what crawled up your fat a s s ? Sounds like you have some real issues that need to be addressed before you go postal on us here. Did your mommy not hug you enough when you were a child? Did you get thrown out of your group ‘cry-in’ or maybe run out of Kleenex? It’s sad that people like you are even out walking in public among the rest of us normal people. There should be a law against ignorant uninformed brainwashed individuals such as yourself, so as to protect the law abiding citizen who still have commons sense. A word of advice, when you post, filling your posts with garbage and ‘filler’ facts that don’t hold water does not make you look intelligent, it does the opposite, it shows your stupidity, so don’t go away mad and stupid, just go away…. LOL!!!!!

          • Bart_R

            Meowsers.

            The topic of the thread is in the title.

            The purpose of Disqus is in its name.

            If you have something on topic to say to the forum, that’s awesome.

            If you’re going to swagger around giving lessons on manners?

            There’s a beam in your eye.

          • https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/the-shot-heard-round-the-world/ delta.charlie.foxtrot

            And you are a disgrace to all things human.

          • Bart_R

            The opinion of a meowser ain’t no thing.

            Pro 6:16-19.

          • Last Man Standing

            LOL! you’re on a roll today! :)

          • Bart_R

            What, is he that big around that he rolls?

            Meowsers. Don’t even understand that they’ve been left behind.

          • https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/the-shot-heard-round-the-world/ delta.charlie.foxtrot

            A real class act this Bart dude is. It never surprises me how the liberals always complain about bullies as they bully others.

          • WaylonII

            So true, they are bigots, calling other people bigots, how sad is that?

          • Bart_R

            They who?

            I know that’s a word I’m not wont to use, as it’s off topic.

            Is it possible thou protest too much?

            The fossil wastes you dump use up the weathering and lignification of your neighbors’ lands.

            How do you plan to pay them what you owe for that?

          • Bart_R

            What’s your definition of ‘liberal’?

            When I see two choices that will have the same outcome, I support the one that involves less government.

            When I see foreign adventure, I know it is not what the Founders intended.

            I understand the Judiciary is a separate branch of government, not to be held up by any other, but its independence to be upheld by all.

            I hold “..all men are created equal..” as self-evident, and truth the cornerstone of the Republic.

            I’m to the right of you. Are you a liberal?

            You don’t even talk to someone to their face when you have an issue with them, or tell them what the issue is.

            Pro 6:16-19.

            And do you see me complaining?

            It’s the Internet. We’re all equal in height, weight, strength, age, sex, race, and every dimension here, and so can neither bully or be bullied except inside the fantasies of weak minds.

            We can, however, show the common courtesy to our hosts to stick to the topic they’ve invited us to Disqus.

            As such, how do you see yourself accounting for your role in making the world hotter faster than it has ever been in the history of humankind, dating back to your African ancestors?

            Pay what you owe.

          • Bart_R

            And it’s so relevant to the topic, too!

            Pro: 6:16-19

          • Bart_R

            We are done? The words of an artist at painting a yellow streak down his own back.

            You want to connect to other dimensions? Do you get your science from Dr. Strange?

            Your comic book standard of science might entertain your turkey friends, but here’s how science works: hold exact the fit inferred from all observations with least assumptions, fewest exceptions and most universal scope possible (but no further than possible) until new observation amends or makes new inference a better fit.

            Imagining components that fit worse because your feathers are ruffled by the consequence that you have to pay for fossil waste disposal?

            That’s birdbrained.

            Pay what you owe.

          • BBQman
          • Bart_R

            Salby’s absurd 2013 presentation is so deeply flawed as to be laughable.

            Here, let’s help you out with Rubino et al (2013) showing the relative contribution of fossil CO2 dumping to the spike in CO2 level:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/241f0cd4be77fd90c811f9f2f9a13063dfba9018448ef94f3068df78e52c3417.jpg

            See how the gold line of concentration of plant emissions (what Salby calls ‘Native Emission’) steadily falls as concentration of total CO2 in atmosphere spikes? That definitively proves that fossil alone (within measurable ranges) is responsible for the spike in CO2 level.

            The rest of Salby’s cherry-picked, obsolete graph?

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.083/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.166/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.25/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.333/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.416/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.583/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.666/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.75/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4

            You get essentially the same outcome with every major temperature trend line held up to CO2.

            What sort of turkey buys into coal-funded Salby’s hamfisted distortions?

            I don’t care.

            Just hope none of your bridges collapse due bad math on the long weekend.

            And pay what you owe.

          • BBQman

            BartR is still struggling through puberty it seems!

          • Bart_R

            Says the ‘man’ whose arguments are pictures of turkeys, butterflies and kittens.

            Pay what you owe.

          • CB

            “My views are my own”

            …so you admit your claims derive from your imagination. Why should you be allowed to clog this thread with your artificially-promoted and poorly-written fiction?

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

          • BBQman

            No, not my imagination, but the sum total of everything I have ever seen, read and experienced taken as a whole and a logical connection of the dots using empathetic mathematics within all of that, why can’t you see it?

          • CB

            “not my imagination”

            …then where, sweetheart? You haven’t posted a single citation. Why should you be allowed to spam this thread with your vote-botted nonsense if you refuse to explain where you’re getting your information?

            psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

          • BBQman

            CB, you can’t see the forest for the trees, I have been giving you descriptions of the actual climate drivers including anomalies and showing the sequential order along with the how other planetary forces impact our climate, you should seek help before it’s too late.

          • CB

            “I have been giving you descriptions”

            Didn’t ask for descriptions, Barbie. Asked for the source of your information. If you cannot or will not provide it, why should you be allowed to post your deranged and vote-botted dishonesty here?

            psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

          • BBQman

            Please stop lying and projecting nonsense, NASA has concluded that around 500 trillion tons of rain fall the the earth each year, this means that CO2 is even less of a climate driver then I thought before.

            Your chart is bogus….denied.

          • CB

            “NASA has concluded that around 500 trillion tons of rain fall on the earth each year”

            …so NASA is your source. Why are you consulting NASA for rainfall totals when there are far clearer indicators you could be consulting them for?

            climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/12_15_seaLevel_left.gif

          • BBQman

            If you would learn to look at everything that makes up our environment, like the 500 trillion tons of rain every year, you would learn that out natural convection more then takes care of the atmospheric CO2 as Mother Nature designed, as part of our sources and sinks, 84.43% of CO2 is primarily a lag behind temperature changes, volcanic activity makes up around 13%, CO2 is a simple byproduct of our ecosystem, all is well, but prepare for the next 30 years to a lot like it was in the year 1770 northern hemisphere, solar cycles and electromagnetic fields should not be ignored CB, and tell BartR to watch for cars when walking his dog!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a4a2341b023ebf5c10618cf7f44981b8e7c73f83b16e8abb80ca030915f8cd34.gif

          • CB

            “look at everything that makes up our environment, like the 500 trillion tons of rain every year”

            You still haven’t pointed to NASA making this claim, and still haven’t explained why it’s relevant. Why not?

            http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/2016temperature.png

          • BBQman

            Are you having reading comprehension problems today?

            I just told you that the NASA assumed 500 trillion tons of rain every year takes care of most of the atmospheric CO2 in the sink, don’t you see the difference between the tons of atmospheric CO2 and the tons of rain falling on earth every year?

            Look CB, if I need to slow down a bit, I will for you, I understand!

          • CB

            “Are you having reading comprehension problems”

            No. I asked for a source. You posted an animated gif of a monkey and a dog. Why should you be allowed to spam this thread with that vote-botted nonsense?

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/files/2016/01/gistemp_map_2015-720×429.png

          • BBQman

            I gave the source twice, stop acting like I did not, and please address this new NASA estimation of 500 trillion tons of rain every year, just go to NASA and check it out, you have to read things CB if you want to gain knowledge!

            From NASA
            “Water vapor drifting above the oceans is carried over land by winds, and eventually falls to the surface in the form of rain and snow. As evaporated water rises in the atmosphere, it expands and cools. In the presence of dust, ice or salt, water vapor in the saturated air condenses around these particles into tiny droplets or ice crystals, forming clouds. Around half of our planet is covered with clouds at any one time. Since clouds reflect sunlight away from the Earth, they play a vital role in the Earth’s climate and energy balance. As these droplets and ice crystals accumulate more water, they become heavier and are pulled from the sky by gravity as rain and snow. In this way, water is returned to land in a form that plants and animals can use. About 100 trillion tons of water falls on land each year, compared to 400 trillion tons over the oceans. Watch how water vapor moves through the atmosphere and returns to Earth as rain and snow in the visualizations below—first on a globe and then on a map of the entire world.” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88bcb35ac73888ff013dc868aeeb28a4eb7fb0fe35e766241ba61d1e16ec8223.jpg

          • CB

            “From NASA”

            You posted zero links to NASA and you posted zero information that relates to the article. Why not? If you cannot or will not point to the source of your information, why should you be allowed to clog this thread with your dishonest, robot-promoted nonsense?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • BBQman

            Do like I did, for your search keywords use ‘nasa 500 trillion tons rain’, that’s all you have to do sweetie, it’s not hard, make those little brain muscles do em some push-ups…..

          • CB

            “Do like I did”

            No, Barbie. I will not make delusional, dishonest claims and then fail to back them up with evidence of any kind, nor will I run like a coward from incredibly simple questions as you have been doing for many posts now. If you’re going to make it so obvious you’re a liar, why bother posting anything at all? Why should your artificially-promoted nonsense be tolerated here?

            nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110906_Figure3.png

          • BBQman

            So you are incapable of doing a simple Internet search with provided key words?

            By the way there is a climate article about the earth’s Equatorial tilt changing over at News for Everyone. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d096a02ba375905cd34cb7cc6929e77ab7b4c9e88aa228fe38717f910cb3a1f.jpg

          • CB

            “So you are incapable of doing a simple Internet search with provided key words?”

            Incorrect. Why should you be allowed to post your unsupported and artificially-promoted dishonesty here, Barbie? If you refuse to stay on topic and support your claims, why shouldn’t you be permanently banned from the site?

            http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/seaice_max_2015_feb_25_2015_withave_still_witholay.3310_2539_print.jpg

          • BBQman

            Sorry CB, but I gave you enough key information about the NASA report on the estimated 500 trillion tons of rain every year that an 8 year old child could have followed up on, you need to spend less time making defamatory comments about me, and do a little more goggling.

            Your condescension has not gone unnoticed, shape up young lady..

          • CB

            “I gave you enough key information about the NASA report”

            lol! You left out where it is and what it has to do with the warming of the planet, if indeed, it actually exists. Now, why should you be allowed to post your artificially-promoted non sequitur here, Barbie? Why shouldn’t you be banned from the site?

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/files/2015/06/no-slow-down-in-global-warming-720×546.jpg

          • BBQman

            Funny question coming from the biggest spammer of the 21th century, CB, I have no doubt that you will be the subject of future discussions in a few (5th grade)lesson plans in the future, as a clear example of repetitive lying about the cause of polar ice lose, by the way sweetie, you should consider the fact that more then one volcanic vent is melting a large percentage of that ice from the bottom up, which supports my theory of electromagnetic energy directing the circulation rate and direction of the outer liquid core and its centrifugal thrusts, which influence where tectonic movement and volcanic eruptions will occur, oh, and I hope you and yours have a very happy Thanksgiving!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/67d70ec3e68145f426eac98317b3c890bb7fafdb2be03095d08998e2698e7189.jpg

          • CB

            “Funny question”

            …that you ran from like a coward. Why should you be allowed to post your artificially-promoted pictures of foxes on this science blog, Barbie? Why shouldn’t people flag you for the spammer you are?

            climate.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/43_24_g-co2-l.jpg

          • BBQman

            CB, lack the ability to see the correct DOTS that need connections, you are lost in the “Everything Is CO2 weeds” again, and stop dismissing my evidence out of hand without even attempting to comprehending it.

            If the pace I have set is to fast for you, please let me know and I will slow down a bit sweetie, is that ok?

            Please call soros and get yourself a new script, you stick has become repetitive and boring, have a happy thanksgiving!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3de6ac5472a334c5c7c6e4bc3eee642b6d1ad05099c5721b926261aa85a08fd9.jpg

          • CB

            “you lack the ability to see the correct DOTS”

            Didn’t ask for dots, Barbie. Asked for sources. If you cannot or will not produce them, why should your delusional, artificially-promoted dishonesty be allowed here?

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temperature-change-small.jpg

          • BBQman

            What’s the point, you don’t even understand how the history of Atmospheric CO2 is not accurately represented in ice cores, CO2 levels in our recent history has been much higher then icecores have led people to believe, your polar ice is primarily melting because of under sea volcanic activity. If you don’t stop with your childish temper tantrums and name calling you will not be advanced to the next dimension of climate science.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b98d8d562a1408599ba4bc0bc8554dbe515e4c7522de2a9cfb85b66254f5a0f4.jpg

          • CB

            “What’s the point”

            Right. That’s what I’ve been asking you. Why lie when everyone knows that’s what you’re doing? When everyone can see you’re lying and then using a vote-bot to promote those lies, why shouldn’t you be flagged as the spammer you are?

            “Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO₂ Level Passes 400 ppm. Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.”

            news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm

          • BBQman

            Here is some information that helps debunk your false theory about CO2 melting polar ice, study up and I will give you a quiz in a few days! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d9fa291da6b8e79d80f0c1846705836ace1b18171626f9363937177f650aeee0.jpg

          • CB

            “Here is some information”

            It’s an image you uploaded from your computer, further cementing your reputation as a liar. Why should you be allowed to spam this thread with your artificially-promoted and unsourced nonsense?

            “In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature.”

            http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

          • BBQman

            So you don’t understand the chart, that’s ok, have you come up with an explanation for the 500 trillion tons of rain that overpowers any effects that the 1 trillion tons of CO2 as a natural climate regulator?
            Have you read about your buddy Gavin Schmidt over at NASA falsifying data to fit the doomsday climate models that China is paying some Americans like Al Gore to keep doing?
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1c618d2e246aaccdb30b2dee049fd039523dbd3e30c7c043adfa690a058a3fc.gif

          • CB

            “you don’t understand the chart”

            I understand it came from your computer. You can tell by hovering over it that it’s unsourced, as is every image you’ve posted here. Why should you be allowed to spam this science thread with your unsupported and artificially-promoted dishonesty, Barbie?

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/chart_hottestYear_012516.jpg

          • BBQman

            Wrong, I have pointed out to you many times in our history of the last 10,000 years when the climate was hotter. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/70603d02d549e66063e2efe00e1d24fe9b9842697cb7dc772b4674f0e3c62fc0.jpg

          • CB

            “Wrong”

            Right… and anyone can verify for themselves that I’m right. uploads.disquscdn.com means you uploaded the image. It’s unsourced. Now, why should you be allowed to post your artificially-promoted and unsourced dishonesty here, Barbie?

            http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/records-of-northern-hemisphere-temperature-variation-during-the-last-1-300-years/figure-2-4-climate-change-2008-reconstructions-of-the-nothern-hemispheric.eps/image_large.png

          • BBQman

            Stop being silly CB, all of my charts show a source, now please study this one so you can better understand how CO2 most always lags and parallels temperature rises.

            CO2 is not a primary climate driver, it’s impact on climate after 345 ppm is negligible.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f779cdde0c7741df988ae957e34efcd5b28fc91b354345cf0e871b249b2b8409.jpg

          • ROO2

            Here is some information that helps debunk your false theory about CO2 melting polar ice

            *Guffaw*

            Marvelous, so not only zero evidence from yourself, but upvotes from your sock-puppets too.

            It highlights the calibre of the Derp nicely I think.

          • https://disqus.com/by/Tiamat333 🌏🚀🌛Tiamat³³³📡🌌👽
          • BBQman

            Ha ha, good one, I suppose I have been beating a dead horse on the climate issues!

          • https://disqus.com/by/Tiamat333 🌏🚀🌛Tiamat³³³📡🌌👽

            It’s always mystified me why you spend so much time and energy on the GW alarmists, but that’s your prerogative. I have plenty more were these came from, so keep it up if you wish and Happy Thanksgiving!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89a3cbf544c98d420dff78b14dd69bc0dca595f90b1e84c98cdb62344999f7f1.gif

          • BBQman

            In my own small way, I am attempting to take the narrative away from them and offer up other theories about what drives our climate, I think they are a bunch of liars and I enjoy exposing those lies.

            I wish some other topics would be more interesting to me some day, and I have been listening and learning more about our atmosphere then I ever knew before.

            I love your gifs!
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5e1dcf023a3984a1fb5a5e078032ac27aa565f9b5d60cff1fe5a350e030b06b.gif

          • https://disqus.com/by/Tiamat333 🌏🚀🌛Tiamat³³³📡🌌👽
          • BBQman

            LMAO, perfect!

          • Bart_R

            How can it be perfect?

            Your yellow streak is nowhere visible on it.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Bart_R

            Mock people you steal from on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • rusty

            This is just so funny! Bird brains like me!

          • Bart_R

            Sixty years of trying to steal the narrative from science, and you’re still a thief.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Bart_R

            Deadbeats have never mystified me.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Bart_R

            Goalpost moving. Check.
            Running and hiding from facts. Check.
            Lying repeatedly. Check.
            Dead horse? Gone missing.

          • BBQman
          • Bart_R
          • BBQman
          • Bart_R

            You do understand UAH represents anomaly from 1981-2010 base year, and GISTemp is built on the 1951-1980 base, right?

            That you have to add 0.431514 degrees C to satellites to compare their anomaly to GISS, and not made-up adjustments to bring them to the same starting point at some random year?

            That five year means are, in a word, meaningless for the purposes of comparison?

            That RSS’s chief data scientist, co-founder Carl Mears, prefers GISS and other surface-based products for accuracy and reliability over satellite?

            That satellite products are susceptible to multiple breaking-in issues with new remote sensing technologies, at least some significant ones according to RSS remain unidentified?

            That the WfT RSS feed is still showing a version of the data over 60% lower than what RSS estimates their newest product will show once it passes peer review?

            That your graph shows a cherry pick?

            Here’s GISS competently presented: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.083/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.166/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.25/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.333/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.416/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.583/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.666/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.75/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise

            Here’s RSS (pre-fix) presented competently: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.083/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.166/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.25/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.333/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.416/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.5/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.583/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.666/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.75/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.83/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from:1979

            Here’s UAH presented competently: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.083/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.166/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.25/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.333/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.416/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.5/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.583/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.666/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.75/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.83/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from:1979

            All three show good overall correlation between CO2 level and global temperature, albeit with slightly different slopes.

            You lie with pictures.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978.9/plot/rss/offset:0.431514/plot/uah6/offset:0.431514/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.9/normalise/offset:0.431514

            A lot.

          • Bart_R

            Still passive aggressively ad hominem, I see.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Bart_R

            Dear America

            Thanks and praise are wonderful gifts. Being thankful for Love, Mercy, Plenty, Grace, Purpose, the Divine Presence, Family, Understanding?

            Those thanks are well received and welcome.

            However, just as it would grate on anyone to be praised for the deeds of another, it is ungrateful to give thanks for what the One you thank abominates and abhors.

            You are all made equal and the first words of guidance written on all your hearts are that as you love each other you are beloved by the Maker. Giving thanks to your Maker for hatred, spite, unkindness, sin, vice and ignorance is not in the spirit of thanks, but of self-glorification and self-serving.

            On a day when your brothers and sisters are deprived by your gluttony, sloth, envy, the theft of what is theirs to accumulate wealth you are not due and to consume in spectacle what they miss in their need and want, perhaps you would consider more Giving than thanks, in remedy for the bloated indifference to the will of the Maker.

          • BBQman

            Please seek professional help soon BartR, I worry about your volatile emotions and mood swings. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bfbdfae95ca597edc7d2223e744585ec583218014c5dec7cc837909142ae5717.gif

          • Bart_R

            Way to stay in the spirit of ThanksGiving.

          • Robert

            Well said!

          • Matt

            Bill and Hillary out for a walk?

          • BBQman
          • Matt

            I love it. but do you have any proof that Hillary is a woman?

          • CB

            “do you have any proof that Hillary is a woman?”

            Why are you talking about “Hillary” on a thread about global warming?

            Are you paid to do that?

            “ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html

          • BBQman

            Coming from the most famous spammer of the 21th century, CB, please start paying some attention to our actual climate drivers, electromagnetic energy! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/452f10070b806cb9bd9039fdea2d2e93908be34450b12ac09d9b96c6bd5ec191.gif

          • Matt

            look at the post I was responding to.

          • BBQman

            CB is ok with all the spam she posts on a daily basis, she has issues.

          • CB

            “CB is ok with all the spam”

            I am not! I believe all of you should be permanently banned from the site for your spamming and use of vote bots to promote it. If you cannot or will not discuss the subject of the article, what argument do you have that any of you should be allowed to stay?

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/ocean-heat-content.gif

          • BBQman

            CB, I have told you on numerous occasions if you are going to quote me, you have to do it from the first word in the sentence to the end of the sentence. The whole sentence sweetie!

            Your response is denied and the short time scale chart you put up is meaningless as needed data in the field of climate studies. Your beginning trend point is also started at a low point anomaly….denied, revise and resubmitt.

          • 😈 FIREBRED ✓Vindicated

            I admire your patience with this stupendous idiot CB. I responded twice to her balderdash and had to run. She sounds just like a turkey 0bama pardoned and must be even dumber than this plucky bird.

          • BBQman

            Now that we have a president and his advisers who will stop the corruption and nonsense about CO2 being anything other then a trace gas, one who understands that climate change has always been with us since the beginning of our time, a president who will most likely abolish most if not all of the EPA and run down traitors like soros, obama, clintoon and podesta for attempting to destroy our constitution and take control of the energy sector, my work here is probably finished, the thrill of the battle is gone…….finally!

          • BBQman

            Good point, we should leave an *asterisk by this gif until proof is established!

          • CB

            “Good point”

            …that has what to do with the article? What is the article about, Barbie?

            Take a guess:

            “2016 on track to smash record for warmest year globally”

          • BBQman

            If you would go to the top of the thread, you can see that I gave a logical explanation of what our current climate conditions were, nothing to worry about, the 500 trillion tons of rain every year regulates the other atmospheric gases through temperature changes and dissipation by the mechanics of our jet stream, which is influenced primarily by our oceans conveyance system, 2016 is not the hottest day on record when you include “ALL” the records, remember about the Ship’s Logs, probably the most accurate method of measuring polar ice ever for the last 10,000 years!

          • ROO2

            rain…regulates the other atmospheric gases

            It seems your pissing in the air is not working.

          • BBQman
          • ROO2

            Yet I do, and all the other cells.

            You are left with politics, and no science.

          • CB

            “You are left with politics, and no science.”

            …and, of course, that’s all Barbie ever had.

            There’s a problem here, though, besides Barbie’s “confusion” about the science.

            Barbie is using a vote-bot to promote his “skeptical” ideas and dancing baloney.

            That’s a way by which actual scientific discussion can be drowned out, and I believe this is his intention.

            To my mind, his posts count as spam, and should be treated as such. In general, I believe people should be allowed to say what they like as long as there’s no credible threat of harm, but in this instance, because he’s using a vote-bot, because he cannot focus on the subject, and because he will not supply the source of his information, I say he should be permanently banned from posting here.

            What do you think?

            “2016 ‘very likely’ to be hottest year on record, UN agency says”

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/world/2016-hottest-year

          • ROO2

            Barbie is using a vote-bot to promote his “skeptical” ideas and dancing baloney.

            I initially thought the same. But then having challenged a few upvoters, I am happy that the ones that responded are real, intellectually challenged people that have zero grasp on how the world around them works.

            That’s a way by which actual scientific discussion can be drowned out, and I believe this is his intention.

            There is no “actual scientific discussion” on these threads. Merely people peddling pseudoscience. The actual scientific discussion is undertaken by scientists, weighted by publications in reputable journals where such analysis or conclusions can be replicated and assessed by others, and accepted by Government scientific advisers and intergovernmental collaboration that is based on fact.

            The fact that you have BBQman who’s life work was coloring in plans with a highlighter and thinks global warming is from magnetism, or RealOldOne2 who thinks everything colder than you whether it be jet black or shiny reflects no energy, they are here making a very strong case that there case is crap. It’s not even pseudoscience, it is just crap.

            The more amusing element is that there is nothing coherent between all of these non scientific claims put forward.

            It’s like they are arguing between themselves over upvotes from the

          • CB

            “having challenged a few upvoters, I am happy that the ones that responded are real, intellectually challenged people”

            Some of them are. Most of them aren’t. He has bragged about using a vote-bot on other threads.

            “There is no “actual scientific discussion” on these threads.”

            On this thread there may not be… but that’s the entire aim of the people engaging in the disruption. I see no reason why they should be allowed to do that.

            If they want to babble nonsense on a thread about nonsense, that’s fine. This isn’t the place for it. If they cannot discuss the topic at hand, they need to leave. They are doing the work of professional liars, if indeed, they aren’t themselves professional liars…

            “The Koch Brothers have sent at least $88,810,770 directly to 80 groups denying climate change science since 1997.”

            http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries

          • jmac

            Well said!

          • BBQman

            Ha ha, I hope you keep on thinking that same delusional nonsense the whole time our new government abolish’s the EPA, the climate study grants dry up, and taxpayer funded tax credits and subsidies for green industries blow away like autumn leafs, your CO2 fraud is over ROO2.

            But I must admit, all the childish insults I received from you and your coconspirators have been entertaining……Whaa ha ha ha ha…my work here is done!

          • ROO2

            I hope you keep on thinking that same delusional nonsense the whole time our new government abolish’s the EPA

            The inconvenient problem that you face is that the majority of the electorate [they were the ones that did not vote for Trump] like clean air and water, and the majority of those that did vote for Trump also like clean air and water.

            You also have the inconvenient problem that you were promised a wall [which now may be partly a fence], a withdrawal from the Paris agreement [which Trump is now keeping an open mind on], an anti-immigrant rhetoric [which Trump is now distancing himself from the Nazi far right].

            Trump has played the electorate, promising many things that will never happen. You’ve been duped, again.

            Coal is dead economically, you can wave goodbye to any resurgence in that, nobody will be investing. You see, that is the major problem you have, market reaction and investment is based on evidence, science and fact – not your version of science where the planet is warmed by unicorn farts.

            Sure you might build a pipeline somewhere, where you had not before, so what. Green energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels in many places on the planet, and will certainly undermine new investment is fossil fuels in the very near future, even if you remove all green subsidies. The economic drivers wait for no man.

            your CO2 fraud is over ROO2

            I’m sorry that you do not understand basic science that child can grasp.

            my work here is done

            Given you career revolved around being handed a large sheet of paper and some crayons, I have to agree with you.

          • BBQman

            By the end of his first 100 days in office, we should know which version (mine or yours)of reality was closer to reality, that will be May 1th, until then, we have nothing else to dialogue about, good day Roo2 and I wish you much success in life.

          • ROO2

            100 days in office? Perhaps a bit longer than that if your claims the EPA will cease to exist.

            But then, getting rid of the statutory regulator of pollution just opens up the private legal challenges. I so look forward to that, what with the US not being in any way a litigious society.

            1st April seems a far more apt date.

            until then, we have nothing else to dialogue about

            Apart from the massive chasm that is your complete lack of scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect, then no, good day to you too, may the threads of all internet pages be free of your vote-bot encrusted science free Derp.

          • jmac

            LOL

          • ROO2

            If you want to better prepare for climate change, study the effects of electromagnetic forces on the directional flow of our molten outer core.

            Oh my. This really is quite special. Special needs.

            My views are my own

            Then you should keep them to yourself.

            If you has shared them and published the science that stood up to scrutiny, the fair enough.

            But you have not, and what you claim is utter BS with zero science.

            Welcome to reality, dimwit.

          • Mike Richardson

            No peer-reviewed data is necessary when all the voices in your head tell you how smart you are, CB! In some cases, they even get voices of other disgruntled actual people on the internet to share in the delusions, which is even sadder. :(

          • BBQman

            Says the guy who can’t even tell us in a quantifiable way how CO2 drives the climate!

            Mike, until you fully understand our atmospheric environment and the sequential order of all climate drivers, it may be best for you too not pop off with so many unsubstantiated (Bravo Sierra) projections.

            Mike R, Tell me how the 500 trillion annual tons of rain we receive on earth can contribute in cleansing the atmosphere of CO2? Look under source and sinks if you need a key word!

          • Mike Richardson

            BBQman, I think you’re the one who needs to explain that whole magnetic forcing thing to us again, since it is not an accepted or proven driver of climate outside of the world inside your head. Also, you’ve made some interesting assertions of “sovereignty” around here — you aren’t one of those Sovereign Citizen types that refuse to accept U.S. currency because of some obscure symbol on the bills, or shoot cops because they represent a government you don’t believe in, are you? Just trying to get the overall level of reasoning behind your own unique theories here.

          • BBQman

            Mike do you still beat your wife, or, are those days behind you now…..see two can play that childish false premise game!

            Ok Mike, last time because you guys just don’t get it.
            The earth’s Equatorial tilt and orbital eccentricities are established by earth’s two cores, inner and outer, the outer is liquid and has a directional flow with a Current and centrifugal thrust which is influenced by the electromagnetic energy of the inner core, but also accepts new flow alterations, sometimes temporary, meaning for a few decades to a few centuries, depending on magnitude of energy from solar anomalies including electrical magnetic pulses (EMP) or as some might say coronal mass ejections (CME), then those flow alterations change the location and direction of the centrifugal thrust produced, which has an impact on our tectonic plates and also produces volcanic activity above and below the sea, which will not only produce earthquakes as a result of the changes in centrifugal thrust, but undersea volcanic discharges which can, and have created El Nino affects and can also influence our oceans conveyance, which along with the above mentioned forces will influence our jet stream along with lunar gravitational forces that also help influence our normal climate and climate anomalies.

            Which means that CO2 is not a climate driver of any significance and most likely should stay between 345 to 1,000 ppm in our atmosphere for a lush healthy earth.

            Also there is about 1 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and our annual rain fall is around 500 trillion tons, this convection of rain loops with a volume “500 times” more massive then the CO2 concentrations, has always stabilized our green house gases and always will, the planet is functioning as normally as it always has, climate anomalies and all, imo…..any questions…Buller…Buller?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/42a0b8dfa513588a1542f88c25c17b100df1ccd66bb4d5eaeebba55488c40a83.jpg

          • Mike Richardson

            Hmmm, interesting dodge of the “Sovereign Citizen” question, which leads me to think there’s something there. You see, the simplest answer to the question would be, “I’ve never beat my wife,” or “I’m not a Sovereign Citizen.” Unless, of course, you are a wife beater or crazed sovereigntist. As for the gibberish you produced as a theory, without source, discussion of methodology, or others who can reproduce or verify the legitimacy of what you say — well, it pretty much shows you aren’t qualified to provide an alternate theory of climate drivers. And it’s “Bueller,” not “Buller.” Can’t even respect the classics.

          • BBQman

            We have been down this road before, I have raised my kids and now they have kids, everyone is doing fine, been married to the same woman over 35 years, 40 plus year career in commercial construction, I believe in God and his laws, now please stop asking me asinine childish questions, well, it’s bedtime, goodnight.

            PS: And the rest of your diatribe will be ignored, from now on I will not respond to lies and insults, start acting like an adult or you will be dismissed permanently. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/873acc691cac82c4e6e5272928d26be6ed87b147714caf78caf8ab7c41db1660.jpg

          • Mike Richardson

            Actually, the Sovereign Citizen question is rather pertinent in establishing your credibility (or lack thereof), as these folks have a track record for some extreme fringe ideas, as well as responding violently to the attempted enforcement of laws passed by man, and not religious doctrine. A simple no would have cleared this issue, but at the risk of being “dismissed,” I’ll take it that I’ve struck a nerve here. Perhaps you might also want to consider boning up on some of the laws of nature, such as the role CO2 and methane play in warming a planet’s atmosphere, as opposed to weak magnetic forces somehow affecting planets from distances well beyond their reach.

          • Robert

            Well done!

          • Mike Richardson

            Thanks. Some of the phaseology just stuck with me, with regards to the Sovereign Citizens junk, and it kind of alarmed me. I’ve seen the news stories where these guys reject the authority of government and law enforcement based on kooky theories regarding placement of stars on the flag, or messages hidden in currency, with often deadly results. If BBQman is one of those, he’s not just eccentric, he’s possibly dangerously deranged.

          • david russell

            CB, like Robert, is a know-nothing troll. However she’s more of a lunatic than Robert.

          • Cold Miser

            As I recall, didn’t one of your own (believer that CO2 drives climate), evenminded, challenge you on this claim and you lost.

          • Denis Ables

            It’s been as warm, likely warmer, during the MWP.
            6,000 boreholes show the MWP trend was global. Proxy temperatures and other evidence from around the globe establish that the MWP was likely warmer than now. That was NATURAL and caused no problem. Polar bears had no problem.

            Our current warming,(such as it is) began NOT in the mid 1800s (a cherry–picked start date) but, by definition, at the bottom (the 1st low temperature experienced during the LIA), so in the mid 1600s. Thus our temperature measurements show 2 centuries of NATURAL warming before 1850.

            But there’s more. co2, which began rising in the mid 1800s, had an average annual increase of 2 ppmv. It would have taken probably another 100 years before any anthropogenic warming could have been noticed. This is further confirmed by the fact that there was a mild cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s.

            The only relevant increasing warming period was from 1975 to 1998. There was NO additional warming from 1998 to at least November 2015. An el Nino (a natural event) cranked up earlier during 2015 and has just begun to subside. A la Nina (a natural cooling) is hot on the el Nino’s tail) is now cranking up.)

            Both Nino and Nina were natural events which drowned out any possible anthropogenic impact and there is the problem of the unexplained temperature “hiatus” for almost 2 decades, with co2 level at its highest.

        • Robert

          Another evidence-free assertion. Or maybe we’re just seeing free association….

          “…our climate patterns today are no different then our climate patterns prior to the IR..”

          • BBQman

            Read your history son, You must find the knowledge by yourself, before you can move into the next dimension of wisdom. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05416686627a486af465b966965ab2b5f4dd73d22aab3a2021756375897c91e0.jpg

          • Robert

            And we enter into your stock of political posters.
            Which it seems you link to more often than science.
            Thanks.

          • BBQman

            No, just reminding y’all to update those resumes, the EPA is about to be no more, that involves science, the science of removing liars from positions of responsibility.

          • Mike Richardson

            With these folks, politics always TRUMPS science, as it unfortunately has in this last election. They don’t have science on their side, so they argue that side of the equation is rigged against them, even as they rig the political system to give a vocal, ill-informed, and ill-intentioned minority enough power to offset the majority in a democracy. Or, what used to be respected as an example of democracy. You can expect to see even worse as they begin to wield more power in this country, sadly.

          • BBQman

            A consensus is not science.

          • Mike Richardson

            Nor is an electoral win a majority in a democracy. However, science can withstand scrutiny, and supports the theory most consistent with observation, experimentation, and prediction. It is therefore more rational than any of the theories you’ve put forth, either quasi-scientific or political.

          • BBQman

            Trump was constitutionally elected, don’t like it, work for a constitutional amendment, but if we did, I would push for each county as mapped out today would have one electoral vote each, that would create around 5034 electoral votes for 2518 to win, now the whole country is represented instead of just letting the large democrap controlled cities that don’t produce hardly any tangible GDP have so much sway in our elections, Thomas Jefferson warned against our cities becoming too large!

            My theory is the next 30 years are going to be pretty cold, all because of the influence of electromagnetic energy on our outer core.

          • Mike Richardson

            Your so-called scientific theory is garbage, and your disdain for the majority (who increasingly live in urban areas, my friend) who voted against the Charlatan-elect is what one would expect from someone who prefers winning at any cost to an informed democracy. Both reflect a refusal to accept facts at odds with an ingrained and provably wrong belief system.

          • BBQman

            After we audit all precincts that exceeded the national voter turnout and and kick out all of the votes from illegal invaders and dead people, Hillary will lose around 10 million fraudulent votes, and many of your ilk that perpetrated the fraud will find their way to prison, and all those lazy city boys can grow their own food from now on, you will find out that playing video games and fvcking off all the time does not equal needed sustenance.
            Good luck in the future, you gona need it!

          • Mike Richardson

            Hmmm, looking like your boy is backing off on that “lock her up,” Wall with Mexico, and mass deportations. What a surprise that a pathological liar lied to get the gullible to vote for him based on their sad prejudices and hate. I think we’ll have to create a new word for this kind of massive con job — how about “Trumped?” As in, you folks just got Trumped! 😉

          • BBQman

            May 1th, patience now!

      • david russell

        Robert is a know-nothing troll. Pay him no heed.

    • Bart_R
      • BBQman

        Here, see if this helps you son!

        2016 is not the hottest year on record, unless your history is on 40 years long!
        I prefer to look at thousands of years worth of climate history to get a better feel for climate patterns.

        CO2 is primarily a byproduct of energy and does not produce any negative GHEffects between 345 to 1,000 ppm.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5ae302e38091f088333a6335695cd68c35babb491669eaaa60d87fcc4ca9cc5.jpg

        • Bart_R

          Why the snarl, junior?

          And it’d be a kindness if you’d list the bridges you’ve had a hand in building, so I could be sure to avoid the risk of crossing them.

          Where’d you get your “2000 Years of Global Temperatures” graph?

          Why, that looks suspiciously like Dr. Roy Spencer’s work. Dr. Roy Spencer, who signed Calvin Beisner’s Cornwall Alliance Declaration, an oath swearing to deny all evidence of global warming by any and all means no matter what. Spencer’s graph has been debunked thoroughly; he’s no paleoclimatologist to begin with, and further, in his own speciality of satellite temperature his own UAH temperature series of 2007 (the year he produced this mockery of a climate trend) was so bad that Spencer has reworked it no less than four times since, increasing its warming trend by 60%.

          PAGES 2K was produced in the last two years, using hundreds of times more data than Spencer’s amateurish little scribble, by dozens of teams of actual paleoclimatologists.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/711a473bfb9e2a18372ee3931cf7c37b54b5629d392b853a0ea4593286a23f07.png

          Why do you cling to lies?

          • BBQman

            Please spare me your drama, you only need provide a summary which shows how CO2 is driving the climate and where in the sequential order of all climate drivers does it fit.

          • Bart_R

            Where’s the list of bridges?

            You demand and demand, and refuse to produce, hypocritically.

            You keep moving your goalposts, and think no one notices your bad faith?

            H. H. Lamb and Gilbert Plass proved CO2’s climate forcing six decades ago. Non-condensing, non-saturating, shouldering CO2 in the IR bandwidth window left open by all other GHGs is on climate time scales the dominant climate driver. While there is about ten times the water vapor on average in the atmosphere than there is CO2, CO2 goes above the dew point, where water vapor has decreasing GHG impact, and CO2 bleeds out of the air on the scale of tens of thousands of years, while it rains and snows and clouds form so fast that water’s mean resident time in the parts of the air it does reach is measured in hours.

            And none of that matters. Fossil waste disposal by weathering is a scarce good. That means a Capitalist wants you to pay property owners rent for fossil waste dumping.

            Why do you hate Capitalism?

        • Bart_R

          Just to make the comparison between Loehle’s hack job and professional scientist’s international collaborations that survived peer-review clearer for you:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a027102fb2eda436e7c7bb72075374f7bd76ccd1fea5dd2aa4d368b904481364.png

          Variance in Loehle is much higher, as one would expect from so much less data; however the false hump in the middle? That could only be explained by selection bias.

          Pay what you owe.

          • BBQman

            You refuse to show how CO2 drives the climate….epic fail….try again after you study up a bit.

          • Bart_R

            I do what?

            Anyone can check my Disqus history to see that I have many times presented this explanation, and why it’s superfluous to our needs.

            You simply refuse to acknowledge the explanations. You’ve ducked and dodged, and declared your yellow streak and tried to run away.

            The physics of CO2 does not stop working at 345 ppmv, or any other level. Magnetic waves do not account for global climate change. Downwelling IR has been measured and exactly corresponds to the Greenhouse Effect. Your infinite regress of squirming out of the facts as presented is a matter of open record across the Internet.

            There is no goodwill in your snarl about people who ‘refuse to show’ you something. The more you write, the more you prove how much is wrong with you.

            Your impossible expectations? Not even relevant, are they?

            All we need know is CO2 levels rise in air, and fossil waste dumping of byproducts of fossil carbon use and exploration are the cause, which Rubino (2013) more than satisfies. Because that proves weathering — the return of fossil from gas to mineral form — is scarce. And in Capitalism, scarce goods belong to the property owner, and the property owner is due Market rents so high as the Market will bear from those who take fruits of his property.

            If you’re a Capitalist, if you believe in the Free Market, you’ll be glad to see fossil waste dumping charged rent, and you’ll be glad to collect your fair share for the weathering your property does.

            If not, why do you hate Capitalism?

            Don’t you want to be paid what you’re owed by fossil waste dumpers?

          • BBQman

            Did you know that per NASA, around around 600 trillion tons of rain falls on earth annually, that makes CO2 a nonissue, our source and sinks are keeping the earth regulated just fine, why do you worry about money so much?

            I have no issues with free markets and capitalism as long as our medium of exchange is not corrupted with excessive fiat currency…..Opps…..to late, and it really is time to do away with the fractional banking system that has destroyed our world economy. Get ready for 30 years of colder weather and hard economic times BartR.

          • Bart_R

            There’s not enough gold in the world to support a gold standard. And if there were? Private ownership of gold is disproportionately in the hands of Middle Easterners and Southeast Asians. You’d be a pauper if you tried to purge yourself of the ‘corruption’ of fiat currency.

            But by all means, if you want to keep up the infinite regress, throwing in Red Herrings about currency is one way to waste everyone’s time. Since that’s all you want to do anyway, can’t fault you for being predictable.

            Your theory about sources and sinks? Just more transparent garbage.

            Vomit garbage on your own time.

            Pay what you owe. Wouldn’t want all that corrupted fiat currency to spread its contagion to you.

          • BBQman

            You continue to ignore evidence even when I get it from NASA, you are pathetic sometimes BartR.

            Currencies do not have to only backed by gold, wake up BartR, anything tangible can back our medium of exchange, the medium never has had any real value, and that is the problem with fractional banking.

          • Bart_R

            Still with the snarl?

            NASA says you’re wrong.

            Why do you cite evidence from an organization that says you’re wrong?

            There are a lot of problems with banking; they’re all irrelevant to the problem of you dumping without paying disposal fees. The fact is, you’re a deadbeat, no matter what currency you use.

            Pay what you owe.

          • BBQman
          • Bart_R

            You mean I’m repeating observations others have made about your repetitive ad nauseum deadbeat lies?

            Post irrelevant gifs on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

    • Bart_R

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2bdcda0b08926ea03b14aab6acbf92a7cc7c9e2e2cc473add5cfd5e78ec95d57.png

      So by all means, point to those dates on this graph built from far more data than yours.

      • BBQman

        I use the more accurate charts, what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off as evidence now BartR?

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d49e81247b691b3a04a87d9303d6ee8faf18ea87089fce96309711f6c9084d1c.jpg

        • Bart_R

          You use a chart built from a singe source reflecting only the conditions in Greenland; how can it be more accurate than all of the available sources in the world put together by the world’s leading experts in paleoclimatology?

          You claim global, when you mean local. That’s not accurate; that’s inaccurate. Moreover, your graph ends in 1950, and you pretend it includes the last 66 years of warming.

          The nonsense and passing off? That’d be your claims.

          Mysteriously, you’re not the first person to make exactly these claims; are you plagiarizing the claims of others, or have you just accidentally repeated their naive mistakes?

          Pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you do.

          • BBQman

            What what method would you recommend to produce an estimate of our climate anomalies during the last 10,000 years if not icecores?

          • Bart_R

            For the same reason as you’re wrong about Loehle’s graph.

            One single ice core series, when there are hundreds of other paleoclimate sources to consider, is willfully inadequate. It’s a cherry pick. It’s a claim that Greenland is the globe, which is patently false.

            Why are you asking me to make this recommendation, when the PAGES 2K Network technical working group have prepared and presented hundreds of documents supporting well-reasoned and ample argument for the state-of-the art in paleoclimatology?

            Why not review PAGES 2K’s work and methods, and address your questions to them, through their email address?

            If you have some serious question about why we would want to consider all the evidence available from the world’s leading experts, peer-reviewed, published, and open to criticism and independent reproduction over one single guy cherry-picking less than one percent of the available evidence, then maybe you might want to take some courses in critical thinking?

          • BBQman

            Sorry, but your source has biased and corrupted data, I will stay with ships logs and certain ice core data, thanks for your feedback though.

          • Bart_R

            Numerical methods. Any competent engineer will tell you that numerical methods can demonstrate bias in a dataset, and corruption in data.

            The graph showing Loehle vs. Marcott and PAGE 2K demonstrates how Loehle’s trend line has higher variance than the amount of data he’s used ought produce, and a noticeable and unexplained bump in the middle absent throughout all the other data in the world.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a027102fb2eda436e7c7bb72075374f7bd76ccd1fea5dd2aa4d368b904481364.png

            Your claims are baseless and in conflict with mathematical sense.

            Why do you lie?

            And can you list the bridges you’ve had a hand in building?

            I wouldn’t want to take a chance by driving on any of them that may still be standing.

          • BBQman

            I see you cranked up your computer etch a sketch again, sorry but I see no supporting data…denied.

          • Bart_R

            Argumentum ad Ignoratio is just an invalid ploy. You didn’t show Loehle’s data, either; and there’s so much less of it than Marcott et al’s 72 datasets (compared to Loehle’s mere 18, smaller sets) or PAGES 2K’s use of all available paleoclimate data.

            You can deny all you want.

            Just pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you do.

            Oh, and if you don’t mind, that list of unsafe bridges you built.

    • The1TruthSpeaker

      Why do you embrace treason?

  • https://canadianfreepress.disq.us Prof Frink

    Great news for Canada! Around 500 years ago we used to have vineyards in Newfoundland that froze over when the globe cooled. This will be great for our economy! The climate is changing for the better … finally.

    • Bart_R

      Your grasp of Canada is poor. Grapes have hundreds of species, and some of those grow all the way to the Arctic Circle.. and in Newfoundland, everything freezes over every winter. But winter is a season, and when the Northern Hemisphere has winter, the Southern Hemisphere has summer.

      Further, about 600 years ago is the start of 400 year stable period for global temperature following an 800 year drop of just less than half of a degree (C), while the last 200 years have seen global temperatures rise almost a full degree, not the start of new global cooling. In other words, those vineyards started to freeze a century too late for your tall tale to even begin to make sense.

      And who elected you to tell Canada what is better for our economy? Are you an Economist? A high school graduate? Neither of those make you King of the Climate.

      You want sea level rises of up to three meters in some decades, invasive species, floods, droughts, extreme weather?

      Fine. Pay us for putting up with it at Market rates.

      • https://canadianfreepress.disq.us Prof Frink

        Settle down there. Vineyards in Newfoundland will make a return, and that is great for Canada.

        • Bart_R

          Why the snark?

          Vineyards never disappeared from the Rock.

          Three meters of sea level rise in a single decade, though, that would shut down or cripple pretty much every port, harbour and coastal city in the country. Stack that up against a few sour grapes, and again the question comes up, who gave you the right to decide for us to do this?

          You want it?

          Fine, pay for the damage you do. Up front.

          Can’t pay what you owe?

          Then don’t commit the trespass.

          • https://canadianfreepress.disq.us Prof Frink

            “Crime”, “trespass”, “pay what you owe”… Double-good comrade!

            Shouldn’t we have been underwater already? Al Gore said so.

          • Bart_R

            Communist George Orwell snarls don’t impress, and neither does regional partisan bullpucky.

            Why do you hate Capitalism?

            Spread lies and snark on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • https://canadianfreepress.disq.us Prof Frink

            I hate carbon taxes, love capitalism, and love my SUVs!

          • Bart_R

            Carbon taxes are the law of the land in Canada, but they aren’t Market rents paid to property owners, as a Capitalist ought prefer.

            If you love your SUV’s and Capitalism, you ought want to pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping your SUVs do.

            It seems more like you hate Capitalism, are a sucker for product placement, and dodge paying what you owe.

          • https://canadianfreepress.disq.us Prof Frink

            I don’t owe anything. I’m a producer, not a leach.

          • Bart_R

            You dump fossil, you use everyone else’s weathering to dispose of it.

            That makes you a trespasser, and a leach, on their property. You’re a taker.

            Do you pay them Market rent for what you take without consent?

            No?

            Then you’re either fooling yourself, or just trying to fool us.

            Pay what you owe.

          • https://canadianfreepress.disq.us Prof Frink

            Thank God for President-elect Trump, who sees through all of this communism.

          • Bart_R

            Putin’s puppet?

            Fidel Castro’s embargo-running partner?

            An atheist who goes through marriages like you go through SUV’s?

            Who just admitted to $25 million dollars worth of fraud in his bogus ‘university’?

            A five time bankrupt under investigation for charity fraud?

            I really don’t think God wants you to blame the consequences of your decisions on Him.

            And what does that have to do with you ducking your debts?

            Pay what you owe.

          • https://canadianfreepress.disq.us Prof Frink

            Enjoy your new President! It is God’s will that Trump will kill the carbon tax.

          • Bart_R

            He’s no one’s president at all until January 6th.

            And if there are a mere two score Electors who hold to their #NeverTrump vows, then he’ll never be anyone’s president.

            As for killing the carbon tax? Who cares?

            I’m a Capitalist; I want weathering Market fossil dumping rents. Entirely different beast.

            Why are you so anti-Capitalist?

            Are you even American?

          • https://canadianfreepress.disq.us Prof Frink

            Respect. I enjoy disagreeing with you. Here is a place for you to explore: canadianfreepress.disq.us . I hope to disagree with you some more over there.

          • Bart_R

            So.. yet another foreigner sticking his tabloid-loving nose into the affairs of Americans?

            Pay what you owe.

            Which in Canada will be $50/tonne carbon taxes, on top of the Market fossil rents you’ve been ducking all your life.

          • https://canadianfreepress.disq.us Prof Frink

            Whenever America sneezes, Canada catches a cold.

          • Bart_R

            America could care less.

            Mind your own business.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Mike Richardson

            More likely he’ll just kill us all if he gets into a Twitter spat with his current man-cruch Putin. Hitler and Stalin seemed to have a beautiful friendship at first — that didn’t play out so well, and neither had nuclear weapons.

          • OWilson

            Only the Democrats have ever used nuclear weapons, remember?

            Only Reagan/Bush and Gorby/Yeltsin ended the MAD Cold War and dismantled communism, with cooperation, not your nuclear WMDs.

            Obama started it up again. Read some of your own commie papers!

            “(new) Cold War”

            The Economist.

            The Washington Post

            The New York Times

            The Commies NEVER forgave Reagan for dismantling the U.S.S.R.

          • Mike Richardson

            I’m a commie?! Obama is an international clown?! LMAO, wow! You really do make up your own reality, don’t you? Too much alt-right garbage really rots the brain, you know. Oops, too late! 😉

      • david russell

        I was in Canada this year. They actually grow grapes and produce wine. I’ve been to one of their many vineyards.

        • Bart_R

          I’ve been across Canada and to North of 70 degrees North latitude. While you don’t produce wine that far into the Arctic, you do get grape vines, albeit scrubby, very nearly that far.

          Thing is, it’s all red herring.

          Canadian wineries were once famous for ice wine, a product which lately has failed because the winter temperatures have not fallen low enough. The same effect caused invasive beetles to destroy much of Canada’s softwood lumber production.

          Who’s going to pay for that?

          • david russell

            I actually bought a bottle of ice wine (which I had never heard of before) when I was in Canada earlier this year. I bought it as a gift. I don’t like it myself — too sweet. I never opined about “north of the Arctic circle” but only about “wine grapes from Canada).

            But you are correct. This is a red-herring.

          • Denis Ables

            Satellite temperature measurements show no statistically significant additional warming since 1998. (The difference between annual global temperature in various recent years is miniscule, a few hundredths of one degree, whereas the uncertainty error is likely above 1/10th of a degree.

            In the Alps a receding glacier recently exposed a forest of shattered tree trunks, which have been dated 4,000 years old. Obviously, trees do not grow anywhere near that site at that latitude any longer. It’s been warmer than now, and that earlier warming was also obviously natur al temperature increase. In Alaska the Mendenhall glacier recently receded sufficiently to expose at least one shattered tree trunk(s) still standing upright in its original position, dated 1,000 years old. It’s been warmer than now during the MWP (and, according to 6,000 boreholes, the MWP trend was global, not regional.) The MWP was likely warmer than now, also due to natural climate variation.

            Both NOAA and NASA depend on terrestrial weather stations rather than on satellite data. Most such stations are located in UHIs, so the raw data must be replaced by estimates of the known UHI temperature bias. Most surface temperature stations do not even satisfy minimum government requiresments. Furthermore, each surface station has other local biases. The local environment changes over time. Trees taken down expose the station to more sun. Growing trees may expose less sun. In general there is continued growth in UHIs, so weather stations are located in changing environments. Finally, not too long ago there were 6,000 weather stations. That has been reduced to about 1,500. There are no stations in most uninhabited areas, (jungles, forests, grasslands, Siberia, the Poles, etc.) Is it coincidental that most of the eliminated stations seemed to have been at northern latitudes, or located at high altitudes?

          • Bart_R

            Huh.

            #Time series (uah) from 1978.92 to 2016.83
            #Selected last 216 samples
            #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0113511 per year
            1998.83 0.0368413
            2016.83 0.24116
            #Data ends
            #Number of samples: 2
            #Mean: 0.139001

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.083/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.166/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.25/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.333/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.416/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.5/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.583/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.666/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.75/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.83/every:12/plot/uah6/from:1979.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from:1979

            Which specific satellite temperature measurements do you mean, exactly?

            As you can clearly see, the latest UAH satellite temperature measurements show very statistically significant warming above 1 degree/century in just the last 216 months (from the same month in 1998 to the same month of the latest measurements this year).

            Why do you cherry pick just the least reliable temperature record available, when the producers of the satellite temperature records themselves agree the surface-based records are superior?

            Is it because you’re a saboteur who will write anything to prevent people of goodwill from obtaining a clear picture of the state of the science?

            I ask because this is the most obvious explanation for your conduct, given how at odds with facts your claims are.

            The difference in annual global temperatures is irrelevant, as the topic is climate change, not subsequent annual global temperature differences. You may as well be a teenager complaining they aren’t getting any taller when they measure their height every four hours, or a dieter claiming they aren’t gaining any weight because they step on a scale twice an hour and don’t see a statistically significant difference. Climate change, differences in probabilities associated with the global climate every 30 years, is not discoverable by interannual differences.

            Why do you lie?

            The Holocene Optimum is a well-known climate phenomenon; it was known six decades ago when H. H. Lamb proved climate changes and that human forcings are a driver of climate. Siting the existence of evidence for the Holocene Optimum is as absurd as citing the existence of evidence for other people having six decades ago dying of natural causes to try to exonerate a defendant found standing over the corpse of the victim with a smoking gun in his hand, laughing and boasting he did it and meant to do it, with a world full of witnesses, and ballistic evidence matching bullets from the body to both the barrel of the gun and the fingerprints of the accused. You’re using luridly irrational argument.

            Why do you lie?

            BEST years ago proved the UHI claims of saboteurs and deniers were without merit. You know this. I know you know this, because you’ve been informed of this time and again. Yet you continue to resort to this false claim.

            Why do you lie?

            I don’t really care.

            Lie on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Denis Ables

            BEST was a joke. The only climatologist on that task was Dr Judith Curry, and some of the other folks came to some dubious conclusions w/o even bothering (for obvious reasons) to Dr. Curry.

            Why do you LIE? Lie on YOUR own time.

            RSS satellite data. Report is on WUWT, No additional warming for 18 years and 9 months.

            The last month of that data in that study was November ’15.

            An el Nino which arrived earlier in 2015 and was still strong in early 2016 ended that claim. But, for some period afterwards, it was still the case that there was no statistically significant warming, but that may have also dissipated in early 2016. However, very recently temperatures have begun to drop significantly, (la Nina now cranking up) so we’ll see if the hiatus (which even the IPCC recognized last year before NOAA re-introduced shipboard SST data (known temperature bias) to offset newer ARGO buoys designed for taking better temperature data. Numerous alarmists were panicking and came up dozens of reasons for why the “missing heat” didn’t show up.

          • Bart_R

            tl;dnr

            You’re clearly just a saboteur who will write anything to prevent people seeing facts clearly.

            I have no interest in wasting time reading your screeds.

            Vent absurd lies on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Denis Ables

            Talk about “screeds”….

            “Pay what YOU owe”

          • Bart_R

            Simply echoing back words without understanding them is what a parrot does.

            Have you made any effort to understand the nature and quality of your errors, and how odious your conduct?

            Do that on your own time.

            Just pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you do.

          • Denis Ables

            I’ve asked you to give me some evidence for your rabid belief, in your own words. If you’re not qualified to do that, there’s no reason to continue to waste the reader’s time.

          • Bart_R

            You’re just a time waster. We’ve done this dance before. You’ve had the evidence presented; not IPCC evidence, but direct from first sources. You’ve always squirmed away and fled when shown your errors and lies for what they are.

            No more.

            Concoct lies and thump your chest on your own time.

            Just pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you do.

            And if readers want evidence, they know where to look: all the places you try to cover up — BEST, the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, over 10,000 new climate studies published every year available through Google Scholar, and on and on, and away from the propagandists you flog.

          • Denis Ables

            As usual, you cannot articulate anything even resembling evidence. Readers please take note.

            You also have no answer to the fact that the CAGW hypothesis comes with some baggage, namely a NECESSARY (but not sufficient) condition. There MUST be a warming region about 10km above the tropics, a “hot spot”.

            Despite thousands of radiosondes, it has never been found.

            Couple that with the fact that the computer models (definitely not evidence, and representing only the author(s) understanding and perhaps biases – are almost all showing a widening gap between the computer projections of temperature and actual temperatures recorded.

            The computer models all contain the built-in ASSUMPTION that water vapor is the real culprit. They assume that water vapor (also a greenhouse gas) impact on temperature is 2 to 3 times that brought on by increasing co2 level. (But NOBODY understands that feedback. it might even be negative rather than positive!)

            These folks have the same problem with their comments about “radiative forcing”. The forcing is real, but what about the feedbacks?
            The climate adapts to the new forcing by leaking out the energy through a different path.

            The EPA has admitted that, even if the government gets to spent all it wants on their solution to this supposed problem, the best that can be done is a drop of 2/100 of one degree in temperature several decades from now. The cost: Many TRILLIONs of dollars.

            So we’re obviously doomed, whether or not we bankrupt our system.

            That being the case, it would obviously be prudent to wait and watch.

            The alarmists are once again claiming that this year will be the “hottest” on record.
            Perhaps, since this is involves the 2015/16 el Nino, and even NASA admits that this temperature increase has nothing to do with their claims of human caused warming, according to NASA. (This already conflicts with the IPCC claim that human activity is the PRINCIPAL cause of global warming, at least for both 1997/98 and 2015/16.

            Anybody looked at a revised temperature graph, over the past few decades which eliminates those two el Ninos?

            Cheers,

          • Bart_R

            More time wasting.

            tl;dnr

            Readers, you too can simply skip over bunkum and hokum from saboteurs.

            Your time is better spent reading the likes of Katherine Hayhoe, Richard Alley, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Greg Mankiw, Yoram Bauman, BEST, NASA, NOAA, or any of the 10,000+ new peer-reviewed published papers you’ll find directly on Google Scholar.

            And really, I’m no fan of referring readers to authors; authors are people and people are fallible. Rather hold exact the fit inferred from all observations with least assumptions or exceptions and broadest scope possible (though no more than possible) until new observation allow amended or new best fit.

            If you do that, the Denis Ables deadbeats of this world lose all their power to waste your time entirely.

            Oh, and Denis, pay what you owe.

          • Denis Ables

            No evidence provided. Amazing. So rabid, so unknowledgeable. Sounds like a cult member or a religious zealot to me.

          • Bart_R

            Fascinating though it is to watch the saboteur continue to squirm on the hook of his own devising, what more need be said?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/241f0cd4be77fd90c811f9f2f9a13063dfba9018448ef94f3068df78e52c3417.jpg

            https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/4241/2736/original.jpg

          • Denis Ables

            You might as well be showing plots of sunrises and blame that on human activity.

            And stating something is BS may salve your ego, but ANYBODY can say that. Where’s the beef?

            Pay YOUR debt to society. Enlighten them with some evidence to justify alarmist claims that human activity is the principal cause of global warming.

            It’s possible we may be contributing to global warming, but that’s not what alarmists are saying.

            All of that “97% consensus” goes right out the window if you ask credible scientists to sign off on human activity being the principal cause. Funny, that “survey” neglected to put that question directly to the participants.

          • Bart_R

            The Rubino et al (2013) graph is a visualization of the evidence that human fossil industry activity is the sole cause of the spike in CO2 in air. That you can’t grasp that? Not our problem.

            The GHE is well-proven. That you can’t grasp that? Not our problem.

            My ‘debt’ to society? What do you know about me or mine? We know about you that you promote fossil waste dumping by deception. Fossil waste dumping is a trespass on the scarce resource of weathering of fossil CO2 out of air back to mineral form. Scarce products of private property must be paid for, or the Market fails. Why do you hate Capitalism?

            Alarmist claims?

            Such as claims that dropping expensive coal for cheaper renewable will magically cost the economy “Many TRILLIONS of dollars”, as you do?

            Random capitalization doesn’t make what you scream true, it just shows what a zealot you are.

            Citing off-topic sources that I never mentioned? Straw man and faithless red herrings.

            The more you write, the more how wrong you are becomes clear.

            Time wasting deadbeats never change.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Denis Ables

            Entirely stupid response.

            Nobody is arguing about the fact that emissions from fossil fuel use is contributing to the increase in co2 level.

            I’m not promoting fossil fuels, that’s another straw man, merely pointing out that alarmists have no evidence (and certainly you can’t provide any) showing that co2 level has anything to do with global temperature.

            Which 20 years does your chart show? There was a cooling from the 40s to the 70s, as co2 continued to increase. There’s been another hiatus of no additional temperature increase (RSS data) from 1998 to November 2015. co2 was rising throughout that period too.

            Over geologic periods, when co2 level was 10 to 20 times higher than now, the only correlation which tracked both up and down trends shows temperature as the supposed “force” with co2 similar level responses hundreds of years LATER. 20 years of correlation on a cherry-picked duration shows nothing except a desperate attempt to verify alarmist claims. (But correlation does not imply causation).

            You’ve been telling everybody else to “pay what they owe”. I think that is adequate justification for me tto say that YOU owe a justification for all your bloviating.

            “I hate capitalism”? That’s really silly. Nope, I’m just not ready to believe alarmists. They have nothing remotely resembling evidence to back up their claim. PERIOD.

          • Bart_R

            Dullards move goalposts and deny necessary consequences.

            Of course confusing people about the facts of the consequences of fossil waste dumping promotes fossil waste dumping.

            Of course rising CO2 level has been shown to be a first order forcing of global warming. We’ve known this for six decades now, from the works of Gilbert Plass and H. H. Lamb. The warming predicted by this explanation has happened throughout each of the last six decades, and the amount of evidence for this cause and effect relationship exceeds the sum of all evidence to date for gravity waves, extrasolar planets, liquid water on Mars, dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs boson, and General Relativity combined.

            That you can’t read and understand a chart to grasp what a 20 year running mean is? Not our problem.

            That you can’t grasp Faint Young Sun Paradox? Not our problem.

            That you don’t understand that Capitalism means you pay Market rents for fruits of the property owned by others? Not our problem.

            All your name-calling and lying? Not our problem.

            Deny on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Denis Ables

            No evidence. More obfuscation.

            The GHG theory works fine in a closed container. Not necessarily adequate for the open atmosphere where there are known, and likely unknown feedbacks, neither type of which we understand, and satellites detect heat escaping to space.

            More speculation on what I might not understand. (Distraction)

            Obfuscate, distract and lie on YOUR own time.

          • Bart_R

            Lie on your own time.

            Pay what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you do.

          • Denis Ables

            Repent. Admit to the readers that you have no evidence… your just a true believer, a paid up member of the Church of CAGW.

          • Bart_R

            You keep repeating the same tired old lies to waste time and distract from your deadbeat ways.

            Pro. 6:16-19

            Pay what you owe.

          • Denis Ables

            You do not comprehend that it is the alarmists’ hypothesis which demands that the government expend considerable resources to address their perceived problem and therefore the alarmists MUST be able to provide clear evidence to support their claim.

            Provide the evidence YOU owe the readers. (In your own words, please. If you can’t do that, then your rantings should be ignored.)

          • Bart_R

            Still with the snarl?

            Pay what you owe.

          • Denis Ables

            And provide what you owe to readers…..

            In your own words, please, EVIDENCE to back up your rabid beliefs.

          • Bart_R

            And he still doesn’t get it. His ad nauseum trap holds no power, however much he shouts and stamps his feet.

            He’s asked. He’s been answered. He chooses to deny he’s been answered? We move on without him.

            Who falls behind gets left behind.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Denis Ables

            “been answered” I don’t think so, and that’s because there is no evidence for Bart to present, even assuming Bart is intelligent enough (probably a stretch) to be capaabe of doing that.

            In your own words, Bart, your own words – Evidence for your rabid belief please !.

          • Bart_R

            What you don’t think would fill a bottomless pit; that you continue to respond as if the replies to your comments were for you shows how much you miss the point.

            The Moon gives us plenty of evidence that you are not just wrong, but also lying. Moon and Earth are roughly the same distance from the Sun, receiving per unit surface area roughly the same warming energies, yet the Moon is so substantially colder than Earth in ways only explained by the Greenhouse Effect of Greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere as to compellingly evidence the power of GHGs.

            We have multiple careful accountings of the changing concentrations of GHGs, and multiple careful accountings of the consequences of GHG changes caused entirely by human fossil waste dumping in air.

            Rubino (2013) amply shows that only CO2 from fossil sources due human activity are responsible for these proven first order global damage effects on climate, pH, crop nutrient density and soil fertility.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/241f0cd4be77fd90c811f9f2f9a13063dfba9018448ef94f3068df78e52c3417.jpg

            It’s only fossil carbon that causes those global harms of climate change and extreme weather, acidification and water chemistry change, crop nutrient density loss and soil fertility predation, and requires weathering scarcity rents.

            We know this because of the Moon, because of instrumental observations of 50 Essential Climate Variables for hundreds of years, because of paleoclimate data and stoichiometry data and botany data and microbiology data and tens of thousands of new peer-reviewed published papers in those topics every year.

            Chlorinated water, for instance, absorbs double the heavy metals as CO2 levels increase linearly, so incidents like the lead poisoning in Flint Michigan and scores of other communities are at your feet, for your fossil waste dumping that alters chloride chemistry through carbonic acid. These are facts in evidence.

            Your rejection of mountains of evidence? Evidence itself of your bias.

            Which is why this post isn’t a reply to you. It’s a reply to your lies, so people who might happen on them have a chance to see them in the context of fact.

            Lie all you want. That’s your business. No one cares about you.

            You’re just a deadbeat, failing to pay scarcity rents on the weathering your fossil waste dumping uses up.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Denis Ables

            tsk, tsk. Bart, while you cannot resist talking about me, that’s not only of no interest to me., but also very likely of no interest to any other readers.

            Your rant above includes no evidence supporting the IPCC claim that human activity is the principal cause of global warming. Not even close.

            The feedbacks here on earth which are not experienced by the moon are many, and are not well understood. The computer model temperature projections compared to actual data continue to widen. The assumption about the level of water vapor feedback is just that…. an assumption. Even the simplest well known periodic NATURAL feedbacks, such as el Nino and la Nina drown out any possible current influence related to human activity.

            You have merely provided more obfuscation and distraction, (standard alarmist fare) nothing even remotely resembling evidence.

            YOU are asking readers to believe YOU rather than their own (supposed) lying eyes.

            Not gonna happen.

          • Bart_R

            The more you write, the more how much is wrong with you becomes clear. That’s the beauty of engaging with the blindly wrong: they make the case against themselves, shooting off their mouths to hit themselves point blank in the foot.

            Goalpost moving ad nauseum, infinite regress of rejection of evidence without reason, use of logical fallacy and lie, over and over, you furnish all the evidence readers need to reject your claims.

            Did I mention the IPCC? How did it become a topic? Did I mention computer models? How did they become a topic? Did I mention WV feedback, one of the best-evidenced phenomena in climatology, in the post you’re replying to? No, I did not. How did it become a topic?

            You skip off into new topics without addressing the evidence that has been put before you. Your yellow streak is practically the uniform of deniers, as you streak away from discussions that have gone against you to try and try again on some other churned up false claims.

            The Moon? People can see that with their own eyes. They can find the evidence for the relative temperatures of the Earth and the Moon, and there are tens of thousands of new peer-reviewed published papers providing evidence built on what science already knows.

            And so we know you are a deadbeat, failing to pay your fossil debt to us all.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Denis Ables

            Silly boy. The IPCC is your church. The only reason for alarmi is the IPCC claim, which all alarmists defend, no doubt including you.
            It is the IPCC which states, in writing, also with no evidence presented, that human activity is the PRINCIPAL cause of global warming.

            Are you DENYing that?

            “Goal post moving” LOL. How so?

            You brought up the moon. Now you are making the laughable claim that people can see the evidence which you cannot articulate. LOL.

            Pay your debt. You owe the audience some evidence for you claim. You remind me of those cartoons which have a scraggly guy standing on the corner with his sign “The World Ends Tomorrow”. (also jno evidence.)

            However, you certainly are mimicking the UN’s claims (The IPCC is part of the UN).
            Several of the UN management have claimed that the climate change argument is all about income transfer, to 3rd world countries.

            Those countries are certainly onboard, insofar as your claim “pay what you owe”.

          • Bart_R

            This response is not for you. You’re a lost cause, a deadbeat who just doesn’t want to face his debts.

            You don’t know me. I don’t need the IPCC, a mere group of interpreters of science to those who discuss policy; had a church before the IPCC existed, and seek no other.

            And who you calling ‘boy’?

            Nor do I fit the definition of alarmist; but you, with your conspiracy ideation and economic false claims certainly do.

            While the IPCC translates accurately what science says, that fossil waste dumping is the principle cause of global warming in the last century, citing in its tens of thousands of pages of reports the evidence of pages and pages of closely footnoted bibliography to some of the scholarly research of the last six decades, the IPCC is slow and cumbersome and has been replaced by Topical Working Groups on many subjects. The IPCC isn’t the law of science, it doesn’t pay for science to be produced, it doesn’t determine what science is done; it is neither arbiter nor commander. The science itself, over ten thousand new climatology papers every year now, is replete with evidence you wouldn’t accept if it were explained to you carefully by a seven year old.

            The Moon-Earth mean temperature difference, spectroscopy of Greenhouse Gases, isotope counts of carbon in air, paleoclimate data from sediments, ice cores, stomata counts, iceberg debris rafts, tree rings, and on and on, instrumental records spanning centuries, shifting habitats of animals and plants, pH changes and coral bleaching, 50 essential climate variables and fields of mathematics you can’t even understand the fundamental workings of, mountains of evidence you will always reject because you just don’t want to face your debts.. your ad nauseum is complete and absurd on its face.

            Why don’t you try to provide some evidence of what you claim?

            Just do it on your own time; no one cares what liars say.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Cold Miser

            “The more you write, the more how much is wrong with you becomes clear.”
            Ah, I see you throw around the same generic rhetoric to quite a few people, without making one valid point.

          • Bart_R

            Just because the same statement is true about two people does not make it generic.

            Peas in a pod.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Cold Miser

            Bart, the only thing you have shown to be true is that you make up your own fake charts and call it “science”.

          • Bart_R

            “Hold true the fit inferred from all observations with least assumption or exception and most scope possible (but no more than possible) until new observation allow amended or new fit.” — Einstein’s interpretation of Newton’s Regulae Philosophandi, the definition of Science.

            A chart fit to all observation with least assumpton or exception and most scope possible — but no more than possible — is science.

            Pay what you owe.

          • RealOldOne2

            Nice job exposing Bart_R as a troll, evoking his tl;dnr, too long; did not read reply. That’s his reply to science which shows him wrong and he can’t refute.
            When 180 words is too long for him to read, it’s no wonder he is scientifically illiterate because he would be unable to even read the abstract of peer reviewed papers, let alone the many thousands of words in the full reports.

          • Bart_R

            As if.

            But to humor your ad hominem screed, I’ll revisit Denis Ables’ over the top absurdities, because you’re so special and people so value your views.

            Attacking Gates and Koch’s project BEST as a joke? That’s absurd. Curry’s appalling conduct on BEST hardly makes dragging her abysmal behavior back into the light of day prudent. Remember those ‘non climatologists’ on BEST are Nobel Prize winners at the top of Physics and Numerical Methods, while middle-of-her-class Curry couldn’t even hold down the job of Chair of Earth Sciences at a middle-of-the-rankings school.

            Repeated lies like Denis Ables’ are always too long to waste time reading.

            RSS satellite data? RSS upwardly adjusted its global temperature time series over 60% in version 4.0, and Carl Mears has repeatedly confirmed his views that surface temperature records are superior to satellite.

            Going to WUWT is always a lie, and too much a waste of time to read.

            #File: RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
            #
            #Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2016.83
            #Selected last 216 samples
            #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0106164 per year
            1998.83 0.161519
            2016.83 0.352615
            #Data ends
            #Number of samples: 2
            #Mean: 0.257067

            Even pre-adjustment, RSS still demonstrated statistically significant warming over 1 C/century since 1998.

            After that 60% upward adjustment, RSS is closer to surface measures.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.083/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.166/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.25/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.333/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.416/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.5/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.583/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.666/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.75/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.83/every:12/plot/rss/from:1979.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from:1979/plot/rss/last:216/trend

            Whinging about the 2015 El Nino while conveniently forgetting that 1998 starting point was the largest El Nino in history?

            Irrelevant red herrings about La Nina possibly doing something, when since 1998 three of the ten hottest years on record were La Nina years — this post-1998 phase being the first time La Nina years were above the century average temperature at all — is simply willful blindness to facts.

            He’s pulled crap like this before. When called on his lies he always doubles down with excuses and more lies.

            Which is why when you see his name on a post, you know it’s tl;dnr.

            So back losing liars if you want; just do it on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • RealOldOne2

            “ad hominem screed”
            Nope, just a short 100% accurate description of your tl;dnr dodge. So sad that can’t face reality. But then we know you can’t face reality because you deny the reality of CO2 fertilization.
            Bart_R: “CO2 tops out the ‘plant food’ category at 300ppmv”
            Very few individuals are ignorant enough to deny CO2 fertilization.

            “So I’ll revisit Denis Ables’…”
            Hey troll, I’m not Denis Ables.
            Take your incoherent, irrational, frothing rant elsewhere. What’s your problem? Can’t get anyone to feed the troll?

          • Bart_R

            Are you still dragging around the butthurt from months ago when you were confronted with facts in conflict with your repetition of the Idsos’ CO2 fantasies?

            I prescribe an inflatable donut.

            And pay what you owe.

  • what goes around comes around

    First we were warned – an early ice age is coming and we are all going to die.

    They sucked all the cash out of that one.

    Then we were warned there is a hole in the ozone layer and we are all going to die.

    They sucked all the cash out of that one.

    Then we were warned acid rain was killing the forests and we are all going to die.

    They sucked all the cash out of that one.

    Then we were warned the climate is warming and we are all going to die.

    They sucked all the cash out of that one.

    Then we were warned the climate is changing and we are all going to die.

    They sucked all the cash out of that one.

    Soon we will be warned that XXXXXX is happening and we are all going to die.

    They will suck all the cash out of that one.

    And the beat goes on.

    As someone once said – “There is a sucker born every minute”.

    Best to all.

    • OWilson

      You missed The Silent Spring, Traffic Gridlock, Killer Smog, Fossil Fuel Depletion by 1980, the Population Bomb, the China Syndrome, Killer Bees, Y2K2, Chernoble, 200 Million Environmental Refugees by 2006, Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035, James Hansen’s Tipping Point by 2008, Al Gores Tipping Point by 2016, Arctic Ice gone by 2015.

      And all in the last 50 years or so!

      But the biggie is now upon us, The Sixth Great Extinction that is going to finish us all off.

      No, really, this time! :)

      If it doesn’t happen, then they’ll start over again with global cooling!

      • Bart_R

        It’s spelled ‘Chernobyl.’ People died there. Treat it with more regard.

        If you don’t believe smog is bad for you, hook up a hose to your tailpipe and close the door to your garage with the motor running. Forty seconds should do it. You may want to have someone standing by outside to pull you out of there at 41 seconds. If you know anyone who likes you that much.

        And the figure was 50 million refugees by 2010. The world has some 60 million refuges now; are you claiming there’s a worldwide shortage of refugees?

        Hansen’s “Tipping Point by 2008”? Sounds fishy. When I check, I find Hansen wrote Tipping Point in 2008. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/StateOfWild_20080428.pdf

        Technically, Hansen’s claims and remarks about tipping points in the article are as correct now as they were in 2008 when he wrote them.

        Your claims? Simply your claims are lies and propaganda.

    • Bart_R

      Who’s ‘we’?

      Why all the snarl and snark?

      I don’t recall especially things happening the way you say. No cash of any significance flowed to anyone talking about coming ice ages in the 1970’s, except from the pockets of willing buyers of fiction to published writers of the same. Are you one of those restraint-of-trade types?

      I do recall the Montreal Protocol, and that changes in industry saved manufacturers billions of dollars developing more modern methods and machines and dealing with so much less red tape from governments and haphazard tariffs at borders.

      Ronald Reagan was the one who got the USA to act on acid rain, at the urging of Conservative Canadian PM Brian Mulroney. Why do you hate Ronald Reagan and spit on his legacy?

      And climate warming warnings started over a century ago, and were confirmed by science six decades ago, before the warnings of a new ice age (which came out of speculation that warming poles would slow the Ocean Conveyor spreading ice further south on), before we knew there was an ozone layer, and before Mulroney or even Reagan had an eye on high office.

      And it seems you’re repeating yourself, too.

      Why do you repeat lies?

      Why all the economic alarmism, based on these lies of yours?

      Are you some sort of Reagan-hating anti-American alarmist?

  • david russell

    There’s a lot of discussion about the melting Arctic. One thing for sure, increased CO2 over say the past decade is NOT the answer. A 2ppm per year increase in atmospheric CO2 can only account for .08C of warming, using Myhre’s radiative forcing formula (which the IPPC uses).

    • david russell

      Myhre’s formula: F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co). For 2X Co2 this becomes F=5.35 x Ln(2) = 3.71W/M2. This is widely accepted to equate with 1.1C of actual warming.

      So for 2ppm increase in Co2 for 10 years to the current 400ppm you get:

      F=5.35 x Ln(400/380) = .2744 W/M2. It’s then a simple ratio math problem to translate this .27W/M2 into .08C of warming.

      Whatever is going on in the Arctic has little to nothing to do with Co2.

      QED

      • Bart_R

        Your grasp of mathematics is.. pitiable.

        https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/4241/2736/original.jpg

        Misinterpreting pieces of works to try to draw conclusions based on the consequences rather than actual observation as you do is always invalid.

        • david russell

          You failed to point to a single math error of mine. But then you are a loon, as I said.

          I said 2 ppm per year for ten years as a simplifying assumption. Feel free to plug in the coerect numbers.

          It won’t make any difference.

          • Bart_R

            A simplifying assumption?

            You faked the numbers, and are cowering behind bafflegab.

            Your failed grasp of Myrhe’s led you to the wrong outcome by an order of magnitude. That’s a pretty big math error you made.

          • david russell

            Bart, you are a kook. I’ve invited you to plug in more accurate numbers, pointing out that won’t make any difference.

            Instead of doing that, you give up a big opportunity to ptove me wrong and instead make up lies (that I faked the data). But that’s the kind of things kooks do.

          • Bart_R

            In mathematics, the first proof of error suffices.

            You don’t get to demand to be proven wrong over and over and over again for the same mistake.

            You’re mistaken. QED.

            And if by ‘kooks’, you mean, ‘mathematicians’, then you’d be right.

            Except we all know you’re wrong.

            And you’ll never ever face that fact about yourself.

            So go refuse to face facts on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            I have no response to your above gibberish.

          • Bart_R

            Be unresponsive on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            More gibberish? Geez.

          • Bart_R

            If “be unresponsive” is “unintelligible or meaningless” to you, let me use smaller words.

            Duck the point, dodge the question, run away, play dumb on your own time.

            You know you’ve taken what belongs to others without paying.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Smaller words…. still gibberish.

          • Bart_R

            READ HARDER.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            So I actually looked up 2006 ppm. Imagine my shock and humiliation to discover it wasn’t 380ppm at all.

            It was 381. !!!!!

          • Bart_R

            I see the source of the issue. You’re assuming equipartition, averaging 10 years during which CO2 levels rose from ~380 (or in this month, 382) ppmv to ~400 (or currently 403) ppmv, to get ~2 ppmv/year.

            However, that’s not how one calculates instantaneous rate, and CO2 rise is accelerating.

            My bad. I ought have clarified with you exactly which mistakes you intended to make, instead of leaping to the conclusion that the mistake was the one that is apparent at first reading.

            So, in that spirit of discovery, perhaps if you’d explain how you got from your inadequacies on instantaneous rate of change to your Arctic denial, recalling that polar amplification multiplies the average global temperature change by somewhere between two and eight times?

          • david russell

            Well, you have taken a giant leap in my estimation. Everyone makes mistakes, but it takes a big person to admit error.

            So presumably you now see how I got only .08C warming from CO2 radiative forcing over the past 10 years in the Arctic (or anywhere on the planet assuming CO2 is a well-mixed gas).

            I do not know what equipartition means. Perhaps you mean equilibrium? I’ll await your clarification. But if it does mean equilibrium, your point is irrelevant. The Arctic has warmed in the past 10 year… in actual fact and the response (transient or equilibrium) from CO2 cannot be the explanation as I have proved.

            You speak of amplifications without specifying any. For sure it’s not water vapor feedback as there hasn’t been any positive water vapor feedback in the historical record from 1989 to 2001 as I have showed from NVAP data (in the Clive Best link I provided). As post 2001 we have been in “the temperature Pause” globally, the increased Co2 recently has had zilch impact on temperature as a matter of record.

          • Bart_R

            Assumption of equipartition is a logical fallacy, alluded to in the myth of Procrustes who would stretch his victims on a rack or cut off their feet to force them to fit an iron bed. A decade of 20 ppmv CO2 rise does not always divide into 10 annual rises of 2 ppmv; the overall rise in CO2 is somewhat accelerating. Nor is Myrhe’s formula meant to be applied below the climate time scale of multiple decades, being based on 30-year running means, nor is it meant to be applied regionally, being based on global means.

            So there is no ‘proved’ in your argument. Global warming is the tide that raises all ships, however there is no tide that can make every cork and bit of flotsam rise at exactly the same rate as every other at the same time, since the sea also has waves and eddies, currents and shallows and deeps.

            Further, that you are unaware of the phenomenon of polar amplification does not make it not a real thing. For background, you may wish to start with http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13143-014-0024-7, “..relative to a reference climate, if the global-mean temperature is higher (lower), the greatest warming (cooling) occurs at the polar regions. This phenomenon is known as polar amplification.”

            Positive water vapor feedback is a physical reality; the physics of the world after 2001 does not obey laws different from the world before 2001. Clive Best’s absurd claims do not amount to ‘for sure’, and do not show what you or he say. Using the Faint Young Sun Paradox (a phenomenon on a time scale of 100’s of millions of years at least!) to attempt to contrive any argument about water vapor feedbacks (phenomena on the scale of days or weeks!) is on its premise so silly it need not attract attention. It’s like saying that the Grand Canyon disproves the existence of bacteria, because if bacteria existed they would long ago have eroded the Earth to nothing.

            Also, there is no post-2001 “temperature pause”; while it is difficult to estimate a climate’s rate of warming with less than 30 years to work from, it is possible to infer the rate from an ensemble of monthly rates: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.083/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.166/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.25/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.333/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.416/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.583/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.666/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.75/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4/to:2001

            The rate of warming, and the rate of CO2 rise are not only correlated (0.96!) both before and after 2001, but the temperature rise after 2001 is notably higher than before 2001, or any other time in the instrumental record.

          • david russell

            I believe you misunderstand the point about Procrustes, but no matter. The actual 2006 ppm CO2 levels were 381.2, whereas my estimate was 380…. an immaterial difference.

            Where do you get your nonsense about how Myhre’s formula requires 30 years of data to be valid? It’s loony on its face. Radiative forcing is IMMEDIATE (or nearly so). Moreover the presumption inherent in the 30 years of data claim is that there’s a material delay in the forcing impact on temperature. This would mean that recent Arctic warming would be an artifact of EVEN LESS CO2 ppms. You’re arguing my point that CO2 cannot be the explanation of substantial recent Arctic warming.

          • Bart_R

            tl;dnr

            Seriously, stop taking what belongs to others without paying.

          • david russell

            As a buffoon, you have no ability to be serious.

          • Bart_R

            Whatever.

            Pay what you owe.

  • david russell

    Meanwhile, RSS satellite data show a 1.2C global cooling since the el Nino highs of early 2016. What do they mean by on-track? Bwhahahahaa.

    • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

      You’re getting confused by monthly versus yearly anomalies. All monthly temperature indices for both satellite and surface are down from the peak highs. But when you average to get the yearly anomalies, they’ll be higher than 2015’s. See this post by Roy Spencer, and the graph and text at the very end.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2016-0-41-deg-c/

      • david russell

        As Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

        I’m not confused at all. When I say that temps have dropped 1.2C from the El Nino induced highs of early 2016 I mean EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

        Obviously the CO2 levels haven’t been reduced since early 2016. And that’s really what alarmisim is about, no? that Co2 emissions are driving temperature. Well, not so much with the el Nino.

        • evenminded

          When I say that temps have dropped 1.2C from the El Nino induced highs of early 2016 I mean EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

          You need to lay off of the crack pipe buddy. That stuff is frying your brain.

          • david russell

            I’ve never used anything stronger than MJ and that only during college, some 50 years ago.

            But I could be drunk and high and still kick your butt.

            RSS satellites show EXACTLY what I said.

          • evenminded

            Yeah, take another look. Put down the bottle and the joint and put your glasses on.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell
          • evenminded
          • david russell

            My link is from the same source and contradicts yours. Anyway yours shows essentially the same point — massive cooling from early 2016 to date.

            Why do you always end your posts by calling someone an idiot? It’s not only rude, but wrong. I have a source, which I provided. It’s loony to call me an idiot.

            Indeed it makes you looked deranged, nasty and dishonest.

          • evenminded

            You’re an idiot. You can’t even read the description of the plot and you were duped into a false statement. Furthermore you have no clue about AGW. No one claims that temperature will be monotonically increasing.

            You’re a moron that doesn’t understand the first thing about science, let alone climate science.

          • david russell

            Once again with the obligatory “you’re an idiot.” And you add (redundantly) “you’re a moron.”

            I am neither. You embarrass yourself.

            Actually your above is gibberish. What are you even talking about “…can’t read the description of the plot?” What does it mean “you were duped?” (and even geniuses can be duped, don’t you know?).

            You are a blowhard and a nasty one to boot. Buzzy off. You’ve nothing of substance to offer.

          • evenminded

            You’re an idiot and a moron. Perhaps if you didn’t act like an idiot and a moron, then you wouldn’t be called those things.

            You don’t even understand the denier link that you went to and you were duped into making a false statement. RSS does not show that the average global temperature has dropped by 1.2C. You can’t even admit your error.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell
          • evenminded

            Read the legend moron.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            You are a lunatic….and an idiot.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            Have you figured it out yet moron?

            You don’t even think to question the denier sites that you go to for all of your bu11sh1t.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            I have indeed figured it out. You are deranged, dishonest, and a blowhard.

          • evenminded

            Glad you figured it out.

            You’re still an idiot.

          • david russell

            I don’t’ know what you are talking about and neither do you.

          • evenminded

            You don’t know what I’m talking about because you are an idiot.

            I know exactly what I am talking about. The fact that the globally averaged TLT as reported by RSS has not dropped by 1.2C since the beginning of the year.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            I provided the chart that confirms what I claimed.

            You seem unwilling to accept the source, or the legend or something, but my source is the same source as your chart. Are you claiming the chart is forged? …or what?

            This is deranged behavior on your part. You have my condolences.

          • evenminded

            You still don’t understand the chart or what you claimed.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Spit it out or shut up.

          • evenminded

            Did you claim that the RSS data shows that the globally average TLT has dropped by 1.2C or not?

          • david russell

            So you got nuttin’. I thought so.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            Did you claim that the RSS data shows that the globally average TLT has dropped by 1.2C or not?

            Or is it that you now realize you made a mistake and you are disavowing your prior claim?

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            My claim is a matter of record, supported by a chart which I posted.

            You have blathered on repetitively, but with no content. You’re becoming a bore.

            Buzz off.

          • evenminded

            Do you stand by your claim or not?

            Have you come to terms with the fact that the globally averaged RSS TLT has not dropped by 1.2C since the beginning of the year?

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Boring.

            All you’ve got is repetitive snide remarks with no substance.

            The more you drone on, the less you say. You must live alone. No one could put up with you except under duress and then only for short periods

          • evenminded

            Have you not realized yet that the chart you linked to is not the RSS global TLT data?

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            The chart is exactly what I said it was.

          • evenminded

            No, it’s not the global data.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            It’s everywhere humans live. Furthermore it puts the lie to CO2 driving anything. The el Nino warming event is irrelevant to AGW.

            So that’s your big insight (the oceans haven’t yet dissipated the el Nino heat). You got nothing.

          • evenminded

            So you lied then. It’s not the global RSS TLT data.

            You’re a confirmed idiot.

          • david russell

            I never lie. You just lied.

          • evenminded

            You do lie. You just lied about what the RSS data showed, and you have lied in the past about being able to understand heat transfer.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Repeating a lie doesn’t make it smell any sweeter. I posted what the RSS satellite showed.

          • evenminded

            Your pants are on fire buddy. You better find a tub of water.

            Why don’t you tell us how much the RSS TLT data shows that global temperatures have dropped.

            Don’t lie now.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Deranged. Liar. Creep. All confirmed.

          • evenminded

            Aw, are you frustrated that I proved that you lied about global temperature data?

            You’re an ignorant idiot that got duped by a denier site. You are suffering from a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • david russell

            Liar. Creep. Deranged. Boring. Dismissed.

          • evenminded

            I proved that you lied about global temperature data.

            You’re an ignorant idiot that got duped by a denier site. You are suffering from a severe case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • david russell

            There is nothing in the site that is incorrect as I have demonstrated. You are wrong. Admit it, or your error becomes another lie.

          • evenminded

            The site is not incorrect, your statement about what the site claims is wrong.

            What does the RSS data for the globally averaged TLT show for the drop in temperature over 2016?

            Don’t lie now moron.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Now you are back-tracking. I thought you said I was duped. So now the site is absolutely correct (which makes you a liar, right?) but I misunderstood it, is that it? If so, that’s a mistake, not a lie. Did I intend to deceive? (careful, I did provide a link and a chart). Ans: No. Therefore no lie.

            So are you lying or merely ignorant. Who cares? Buzz off.

          • evenminded

            You were duped. You stated that global temperatures had declined by 1.2C. You thought that is what the site you linked to claimed. It did not.

            By now you certainly know that the site is referencing land only and not global data. Hence you know that you made an error and yet you do not admit it. So, either you are a liar or just dishonest.

            What does the RSS data for the globally averaged TLT show for the drop in temperature over 2016?

          • david russell

            Here’s another English lesson:
            Dupe: to deceive, trick

            Did the article deceive….or the chart trick? Ans: no

            There is something totally repellant about you. As I provided both the link (up front) and the chart, instead of calling me a liar and an idiot ad nauseam why not make your point feckless as it is up front and save everyone wasting time with pointless blather?

            Don’t bother answering, because I know: You are a nasty blowhard jerk.

          • evenminded

            If the article did not deceive you, then you lied.

            What does the RSS data for the globally averaged TLT show for the drop in temperature over 2016?

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2016

          • RealOldOne2

            He’s just trolling to evoke an emotional reaction. I understand it’s irritating, but I’d suggest not taking his bait, not feeding the troll. Everyone can see what he is.

            It’s OK to make factual replies that expose his ignorance though, like I did here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3013994457

            Then let his inane replies go. It just exposes how unhinged and detached from reality he is.

          • david russell

            Liar and creep. Confirmed.

            I posted both the chart and the article the chart was from.

          • evenminded

            Yes you posted a chart and lied about what it showed. It was not averaged global temperature.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            I posted the chart.
            I posted a link to the article that contained the chart.
            Here’s the first paragraph in the article which presumably you didn’t read:

            Satellites Show -1.2° C Temperature Drop Since Early 2016 As Scientists Project Low Solar Activity, Cooling In Coming Decades
            By Kenneth Richard on 17. November 2016
            The most recent Super El Niño natural warming event exerted its maximum effect on surface temperature anomalies during the last few months of 2015 and the first few months of 2016. Since then, surface temperatures over land have dramatically declined by about 1.2° C according to the RSS satellite dataset.

          • evenminded

            Do you have comprehension problems? Of course you do because you are an idiot.

            There is a difference between the RSS TLT for the globe versus land only.

            You lied about global temperatures declining by 1.2C.

            Why can’t you simply admit your error?

            Oh, that’s right, you’re an idiot.

          • ROO2

            david russell – OWNED.

          • BBQman

            Where is that paper that explains how CO2 drives the climate that you owe me?

          • ROO2
          • BBQman

            Stop deflecting and cough up your white paper on how CO2 drives the climate after 345 ppm, it has to be in your words, or I will take your non response as evidence you are out of your depths and confirm that you have discredited yourself….now please do as I ask…..NOW! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16c62011543bf4c7e5966b418f0ec75fc9769b2e97f841f8b0e46c9abcae5bf3.gif

          • ROO2

            If you need help with understanding how the greenhouse effect works, perhaps you can try going back to school and starting again from scratch.

            Your question is idiotic. Read the above paper and watch the lecture.
            I’m not writing a lengthy response to an evidence imbecile.

          • BBQman

            Because you can’t!

          • ROO2

            Perhaps you can get somebody else to play with your strawman?

            The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 345 ppm around 1985.

            The planet has accumulated vast amounts of energy since this time

            https://ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2003/FigBox3.1-1.jpg

            But the solar activity has been declining since this time, but still it continues to warm.

          • BBQman

            Sorry, but that is not a quantifiable answer that proves CO2 is a climate driver, better luck next time….you are dismissed….run along now.

          • ROO2

            Watch the lecture from Professor Richard Alley.

            He’ll explain some basics for you, although you might struggle to comprehend most of it.

          • david russell

            You realize the inanity of calling me both and idiot and a liar, don’t you? I conclude you just don’t speak English very well. You don’t for example comprehend the word “Lie.”

            What planet are you from by the way?

          • evenminded

            You are both an idiot and a liar.

            What does the RSS data for the globally averaged TLT show for the drop in temperature over 2016?

          • david russell

            Sorry, Your insistence on mistakenly calling me a liar, has turned you into a liar… again.

          • evenminded

            You should stop lying if you don’t want to be called a liar.

            What does the RSS data for the globally averaged TLT show for the drop in temperature over 2016?

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2016

          • ROO2

            Since then, surface temperatures over land

            Surface temperatures? From the NOAA satellite retrievals?

            Are you sure? You seem mightily confused david.

          • david russell

            I didn’t write the article, but merely quote it. Therefore obviously it is you who are confused.

          • ROO2

            You quote and article from Kenneth Richard from the science denial site No Trick Zone.

            Your are an idiot and a moron.

          • david russell

            Who told you to get up from the kiddie table? Go back and shut up.

          • ROO2

            Why are you quoting articles from a known science denial website where you have not verified the accuracy of the content?

            Your sole aim is to spread disinformation.

            A very dishonest trait.

          • david russell

            You really are a light-weight. Buzz off.

          • ROO2

            How so? A light-weight sounds like the kind of person that would quote articles from a known science denial website and not verify the accuracy of the content.

            Sound familiar?

          • david russell

            Thanks for demonstrating that you ate a light-weight with your ad hominem unsupported claim. You are blinded by your dogma which makes you not only a light-weight but intellectually dishonest. All that gets into your view is what agrees with it.

          • ROO2

            ad hominem?

            Are you admitting that you are the kind of person that would quote articles from a known science denial website and not verify the accuracy of the content?

            Tut, tut, david.

            You should know better than that by now.

          • david russell

            Yes ad hominem.

            You do it again in your second paragraph. What a dope. What a light-weight.

            Buzz off. You are out of your league.

          • evenminded

            Out of his league?

            You can’t even bring yourself to quantify the average amount of LWR that is emitted by the atmosphere and absorbed by the surface. You can’t bring yourself to admit that the global temperature drop reported by RSS has not been 1.2C for 2016.

            You’re a scientifically illiterate joke.

          • david russell

            I’m looking forward to the next 4 years:

            1) EPA neutered or eliminated
            2) Keystone XL completed.
            3) Paris Agreement collapses
            4) US funding for IPCC pseudo-science drastically cut or terminated
            5) Funding for climate alarmist puff-science cut or terminated
            6) More enlightened regulation on all businesses, including energy businesses
            7) end of the war on coal.
            8) The US becomes destination of choice for global businesses looking for rule of law, cheap energy, rational regulation.
            9) climate alarmist doofuses like you and ROO2 and CB and Robert become the political pariahs you all so richly deserve.

            If all this comes to pass, we’ll have 8 years not 4 of Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and Myron Ebell.

            Maybe you’ll be needing therapy.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            The last bastion of the terminally stupid.

            If you can’t address the topic at hand, change the subject.

            Science doesn’t care what your opinion is. You truly are an idiot.

          • david russell

            Face it. You and your ilk lost the battle on election Tuesday. Dark times ahead. Loser.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            The election had nothing to do with science moron.

            You’re a proven idiot.

          • david russell

            The science will follow the money, right? Isn’t that part of the warmist meme. When scientists are freed from the pressures of warmist funding, the truth will finally out. Just like the truth about eugenics.

            We morons and idiots are now in charge. Dark days ahead for the likes of you.

            I’m actually looking forward to another 8 years of cooling while the US romps with it’s cheap fossil fuel energy and the EU disintegrates with its goofy renewable scheme and its attempts to make an unworkable union together. Who would lend in Euros with the very real prospect there won’t be any Euros in 10 years? Maybe you?

          • evenminded

            Science follows the facts moron. Something that you obviously couldn’t care less about.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            You sound scared. Hoew does it feel to have 4, possibly 8, years of watching the pseudo-science of climate alarmism get ripped to shreds?

          • evenminded

            You sound like an idiot that has to change the subject when faced with proof that he has no clue what he is talking about.

            You’re a moron.

          • david russell

            You still atalking around? I’d thought you’d be high-tailing it out of the country by now to maybe Germany where electicity prices are high and Syrian refugees are on the ascent.

          • evenminded

            As long as you keep making idiotic fact-free posts, I’ll be around to call you out on it.

            You’re a moron.

          • david russell

            Be scared. Be very scared.

          • evenminded

            Scared of what David?

            So far what I have been doing is laughing at your scientific incompetence.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            You keep on laughing. The new sheriff and his deputies meanwhile are going to keep demolishing your climate alarmism store front. I’m not saying you’ll be ridden out of town, in a new tar and feather suit, but it’s possible.

            Be scared. The future for you and y our ilk is dark. Very dark.

          • evenminded

            I’ll keep laughing. Each post you make further demonstrates that you don’t have a clue about basic science and mathematics.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            You just keep your banal, repetitive bitch-y comments coming and i’ll keep slapping your face.

          • evenminded

            LOL

            That’s funny coming from someone that just got his a$$ handed to him.

            It’s just too easy for me to demonstrate the you have no clue what you are talking about.

            Have you figured out what the temperature drop has been for the global RSS data yet?

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            In your mind. You merely made an A$$ out of yourself…which plays to your forte.

          • evenminded

            I just proved that you either lied about or were fooled by a denier website, and that you posted information that was demonstrably false.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            If you did as you say, why are you so despararately and pathetically whining about it……boringly ad nauseam?

            Methinks the Lady doth protest too much. She also needs some new material. The old stuff is getting rank.

          • evenminded

            You’re the one that’s been whining about being shown to be a liar (or is it a fool?).

            Perhaps if you weren’t such an idiot you wouldn’t be so easy to kick around.

          • david russell

            If I thought you were kicking me around, I would block you. I enjoy slapping you around. It’s a hobby to slap alarmists around. I view you as target practice.

          • evenminded

            Sure David, keep telling yourself that.

            I’ve proven that you are a dishonest idiot, which is why you refuse to acknowledge that the global RSS data does not show a 1.2C drop in temperature for 2016.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Same old stuff.

          • evenminded

            Yep, you making a fool of yourself. Don’t you ever get tired of looking like a moron?

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Again, SOS.

          • evenminded

            Yep, you proving that you’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Is that all ya got? What a doofus.

          • evenminded

            What else do I need?

            You provide all of the material that proves that you are an idiot.

            If you weren’t such a dishonest little weasel you’d be able to admit your errors.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            You aren’t thinking clearly. The reason I think this is because that’s my take on the course of US politics. As an Aussie much of US politics would seem opaque, I imagine.

            If Truot is going to get these things done, he needs to move quickly. Paul Ryan already has much of the legislation in hand. Myron Ron Ebell, the new EPA director is already planning to end the war on coal and on CO2. Trump can dismantle a lot just by executive order as well.

            It’s going to be dark times for you climate alarmists.

          • evenminded

            WTF are you talking about David?

            Why are you responding to a 7 day old thread about your false claim that globally average RSS temperature data showed a 1.2C drop during 2016 with political irrelevancy?

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            My mistake. I was responding to someone else…. I thought. Ignore my comment.

          • ROO2

            Be scared. Be very scared.

            What? There’s more than your infantile grasp on science?

            https://permanentplastichelmet.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screen-shot-2013-11-21-at-17-12-37.png

            Ah, now I know where you are coming from.

          • david russell

            I wasn’t talking to you. You’re to dumb to be scared. Nice picture. Is if from you family album? Bwahahaha.

          • ROO2

            I wasn’t talking to you.

            That’s not how public discussion works.

            Is if[sic] from you[sic] family album?

            It seems you have more teeth than fingers.

          • david russell

            Yes, you’re going to have to struggle with [my] typos which are common when I reply on my phone…..big fingers, little screen, little letters and old eyes. But you did get my meaning, now didn’t you?

          • ROO2

            But you did get my meaning, now didn’t you?

            “Be scared. Be very scared.”

            Yes, it’s some sort of threat where you are planning to hunt down evenminded? I juts hope your battery lasts.

            http://freetheanimal.com/images/2012/10/fat-guy-on-scooter.jpg

          • david russell

            Very amusing. From your family album?

            This man wouldn’t exist during the last planetary climate — the Little Ice Age. Millions died of starvation. This guy looks like corn-fed beef!!!

          • ROO2

            This man wouldn’t exist during the last planetary climate — the Little Ice Age

            Depends where he lived.

            “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

          • david russell

            The LIA was global. He could have lived in Antarctica even.

          • ROO2

            I’ll stick with the science thanks, rather than your fanciful delusions.

          • david russell

            Bwhahahaha. In your dreams, doofus.

          • ROO2

            You published a rebuttal to the pages2k paper?

            Link please, this should be good.

          • david russell

            WTF are you talking about (“pages2K”?)?

          • ROO2

            The consortium of authors of the paper that I provided as a link to you about 3 messages ago that you clearly have not read.

            I’m not sure I am going to be able to get far enough down the food chain to be able to communicate with you david.

          • david russell

            Yes, I caught that already. No I’m not going to list all the articles that show the LIA was global.

            The way this works is that each author shows that the LIA (or the MWP) existed here (i.e., in a specific place).. None of these shows that the LIA (or the MWP) existed everywhere. In order to reach that conclusion you have to amalgamate hundreds of articles. I believe Craig Idso has done that. You might try CO2Science.org.

          • ROO2

            I’m not going to list all the articles that show the LIA was global

            Conveniently, you just did. None. Thanks.

            You might try CO2Science.org.

            If I wanted information on climate science why would I chose to go to a geographer with known ties and funding from the fossil fuel corporations?

            That suggestion is as ridiculous as the content of your posts.

          • david russell

            If you don’t want to go to where the answers are, then enjoy your ignorance.

            The issue of how extensive the LIA was (or the MWP), is but a side-show to the main event, namely our climate today and where it’s going over the next 100 years.

          • ROO2

            If you don’t want to go to where the answers are

            Oh I do:

            https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

            If your IQ had one less point I think you’d be a plant.

          • david russell

            The IPCC?? The IPCC??? Hmmm. Where have I heard of these guys before?? Oh, I remember now……

            These are the guys who high-lighted Michael Mann’s scurrilous and totally debunked Hockey Stick graph for the TAR which made both the LIA and the MWP …

            COMPLETEY……
            DISAPPEAR!!!!!!

            Yeah, I’ll believe them. Sure. Of course you have no clue what they say, so your suggestion is fatuous…..just like YOU.

          • ROO2

            I’m really sorry for your loss, truly I am.

            Mann’s initial reconstruction was not debunked. It seems you have been feeding in the gutter again, rather than the scientific literature.

            Mann has had many reconstructions since the TAR, again none debunked and used even in the latest IPCC report.

            But Mann’s original hockey stick is really rather old hat compared to the science that has comes through since that time. Even the followinf is rather out of date:

            http://environmentalforest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html

            You’ll not read it nor comprehend the content I’m sure, but the educated that pass by will appreciate it I’m sure.

          • david russell

            You are right about one thing: I’m not going to read a bunch of nonsense warmist tripe arguing that neither the MWP nor the LIA ever existed.

            You shouldn’t either. It will rot your brain. Oh, I forgot: you don’t have one.

          • ROO2

            I’m not going to read a bunch of nonsense warmist tripe

            Google translate: Science.

            I agree, it would not be worth your time, given that you would not be able to comprehend the content.

            Head off back to your flat Earth where you’ll be safe.

          • david russell

            Some things just aren’t worth paying attention to. One such thing is your views on…..well, just about anything.

            I can’t but notice that you DID NOT say that any science papers (other than Mann’s) claim there was no MWP or LIA.

            Do you so claim? Yes or no.

          • ROO2

            Some things just aren’t worth paying attention to.

            Google translate: Science.

            Scientific position: current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods for the MIA or LIA.

          • david russell

            Like you know the science.

            Here’s a question for you: What caused the LIA (say wherever you think it was)?

            Careful. If it was caused by the Maunder and Dalton Minima, how do the pseudo-scientists explain how they got the sun to shine less first here then there but not everywhere the sun shines at the same time?

            Bwahahaa

          • ROO2

            Like you know the science.

            Here’s a question for you, as you presume to know the science: What caused the LIA (say wherever you think it was) AT ALL?

            “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks”

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/abstract

            “Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium”

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2040.html

            “We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.”

            “One of the popular ideas about climate change is the idea that the Little Ice Age was caused by the sun,” Professor Simon Tett, one of the authors of the paper, told RTCC. “The paper shows that ain’t so. It was more likely to be volcanoes.”

            http://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/12/23/scientists-dismiss-solar-link-to-medieval-little-ice-age/

          • david russell

            Your position is that there wasn’t any LIA, so you question is incoherent.

            I decided not to argue about this issue because it really doesn’t matter all that much and to dispute with you on this requires too much work on my part.

            As was revealing Climate-gate, the powers that be were desperate to make the LIA (and the MWP) go away and as Ronald Coase famously said, “IF you torture the data long enough, they will confess.”

          • ROO2

            Your position is that there wasn’t any LIA

            Please don’t misrepresent what I said. There was a LIA, but it was not a globally synchronous event.

            As was revealed in Climate-gate

            I’ll leave you with your conspiracy theories.

          • david russell

            I’m going to give you this one, mainly because it’s not worth my time and doesn’t have much relevance to AGW going forward.

            Besides, you need an ocaszional win just to keep in the game

          • Robert

            Bwhahahaha (Russell 2016).

            Russell, D. (2016, April 1). It’s not my tailpipe. Retrieved November 22, 2016, from Whut.wuwt.com

          • ROO2

            LOL, the date too. Nice touch, 😉

          • Robert

            No point in subtlety…….

          • evenminded

            He may be old and stupid, but he has the argument style of a pre-teen child.

            http://www.memes.com/meme/708014

          • ROO2

            Strange, his grasp on science is also like that of a very uneducated pre-teen child too.

          • Robert
          • david russell

            So did you find the missing space (between your ears, maybe?).

            CB might help you. She has empty space between her ears. Maybe she’ll let you borrow some.

            Gobble. Gobble.

          • Sparafucile

            I’d really like to see nuclear power unburdened with preposterous false economies, too (like government-enablement of a lawsuit industry, and a prohibition on waste reprocessing).

          • ROO2

            Seems you need to learn what an ad hominem is, along with what the global RSS TLT dataset is.

          • david russell

            Seems you are wrong again… .twice in one sentence.

            Buzz off. Check into a mental hospital. You’re going to need lots and lots of therapy over the next 4 years as you watch helplessly the climate alarmist movement collapse.

          • ROO2

            You’re going to need lots and lots of therapy over the next 4 years as you watch helplessly the climate alarmist movement collapse.

            Sorry buddy, I’m sat here with the sane part of the world, and the majority of the US electorate laughing you post-truth dipshits.

          • david russell

            We dipshits are now in control, Loser.

          • ROO2

            We dipshits are now in control

            Indeed, I could not have stated it better myself.

          • david russell

            …. and you dipshits lose. There. I just said it better. Bwahahaha.

            Loser.
            Loser.
            Loser.

            Better hide. Sounds like you are scared. Maybe a change of venue would help. Why not return to your home planet, Planet Crackpot?

          • ROO2

            I’ve lost nothing. As I have explained to you already, I am sat here with the sane part of the world, pointing and laughing at the US.

          • ROO2

            You are out of your league.

            Blimey, how far have I been relegated, it seems a mighty long way.

            Certainly no further to be relegated when in your company down here in the Derp league with you citing such credible references like No Trick Zone.

          • david russell

            You and your ilk lost the battle on Election Tuesday. Dark time ahead for the climate alarmist team. The rest of us will be enjoying economic prosperity and climate alarmism will be relegated to the same dust bin as eugenics.

          • ROO2

            “will be relegated to the same dust bin as eugenics”

            Well, that’s going so well so far:

            https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/?utm_source=fbb

            “Dark time ahead for the climate alarmist team.”

            Not really. There’s a whole world looking for intelligent, logical thinking, rational people to undertake scientific work.

            If American politicians want to turn their back on facts and have policy decision based on ideology as funded by their paymasters, and having been voted in by the minority of the electorate – then they will have to take ownership of the consequences of their actions.

          • david russell

            Oddly I agree with you…. sort of. AGW alarmism is pseudo-science and deserves to be obliterated by the truth.

          • ROO2

            AGW alarmism is pseudo-science

            Given that it is phrase created by you, I’m sure you are right this once.

          • david russell

            Thanks for giving me credit, but it is undeserved. It’s not a trade-marked or copyrighted phrase, but merely a descriptive phrase well-understood. Well maybe not by you, but who cares what you think? Certainly not me.

            I am usually right, BTW.

          • ROO2

            a descriptive phrase well-understood

            The please define exactly what it means in the context of impacts from AGW.

          • david russell

            sure: a climate sensitivity greater that 1.5C due to increased CO2.

            Hope that helps.

          • ROO2

            sure: a climate sensitivity greater that 1.5C due to increased CO2.

            Hope that helps.

            No david. That does not help in the slightest. A climate sensitivity figure is rather meaningless unless you prescribe what you intend to emit in terms of CO2.

            Your perception of “climate alarmists” is therefore wrong. So long as there is zero net CO2 emissions, the climate sensitivity is immaterial and therefore not alarmist or otherwise.

            On the other hand we can take your threshold of acceptability for climate sensitivity and head the RCP 8.5 pathway which will lead to a quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 by the end of the century.

            That would give us, with your acceptable non alarmist climate sensitivity 3 C in global warming and over 7.5 metres in locked in sea level rise.

            I’m getting a slight sense that your position, given that you are retired and clearly have not procreated, that you might be thinking solely about your short term position and are willing to be a burden to global society.

          • david russell

            You asked. I gave you an answer. I’m expecting quite a bit more CO2… with no negative effects. Does that help?

            Quadrupling of CO2 by 2100? Wow. That’s going to mean one heck of a lot of human prosperity.

          • ROO2

            I gave you an answer.

            A meaningless one, yes. Thank you so much.

            I’m expecting quite a bit more CO2… with no negative effects.

            So you much more CO2 are you expecting, and how much more warming?

          • david russell

            It doesn’t matter much given low climate sensitivity, but say 2-4ppm per year. At the high end of that ppm wouldn’t even double and doubling only gets you 1.1C extra warming.

          • ROO2

            It doesn’t matter much given low climate sensitivity

            Low climate sensitivity is not a given.

            but say 2-4ppm per year. At the high end of that ppm wouldn’t even double

            WTF? Are you mathematically illiterate?

            The high end of that rate would double pre-industrial CO2 by 2040 and result in a three fold increase by the end of century.

            doubling only gets you 1.1C extra warming

            Pwahahahahahaha!

            No dipshit, that’s just the warming from CO2 in the absence of feedbacks.

            So, you are happy that a 3C rise in global average temperature locking in over 7.5 metres of sea level rise is not alarmist.

            Thank you.

            Your charity on behalf on the US for accepting the residence of the majority of the 150 million displaced people of Bangladesh is most welcome.

          • david russell

            Assume I meant: “from today” and your confusion disappears. 2ppm for 84 years is 168, which is not even 50% more than today’s ~400ppm. And so forth.

            Oh and the water vapor feedback is imaginary.

          • ROO2

            Assume I meant: “from today” and your confusion disappears

            No my confusion does not disappear. The fact that the additional GHGs added to the atmosphere up until today will bring about a 3 metre rise in sea level, before we choose to look forward with your cherrypicked date is stupid.

            If you are saying that a 3 metre sea level rise is not alarmist that’s absolutely fine. But that would mean you are committed to not increasing GHG concentrations further and are fully willing to pay to compensate the effects of the impacts to date and into the future, given you still condone the ongoing burning of fossil fuels.

            The polluter pays. Time to make your payment.

          • david russell

            In your dreams. Sea level is rising 6″ per century with no recent acceleration. Stop digging this hole you’re in.

          • ROO2

            Sea level is rising 6″ per century with no recent acceleration.

            So let’s have a look at sea level rise:

            http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2_22_16_John_CC_NuisanceFlooding_GlobalSLR_720_492_s_c1_c_c.jpg

            Oh look a hockeystick.

            Let’s have a look at coastal flood days in the US:

            http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2_22_16_John_CC_NuisanceFlooding_USFloodDays_decades_720_492_s_c1_c_c.jpg

            Oh look an acceleration.

            Let’s look at the actual level rise:

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/full/nature14093.html

            Oh look acceleration:

            Let’s have a look at contributors to sea level rise:

            https://ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2004/Fig4-15.jpg

            Greenland accelerating increase.

            https://ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2004/Fig4-16.jpg

            Antarctica, accelerating increase.

            Would effect do you think those contributing signals of accelerating ice melt have on the ongoing sea level rise?

          • david russell

            Wow! ROO2 has been up all night, feverishly assembling this house of cards. Let’s take the cards one a time:

            SEA-LEVEL RISE
            His first chart demonstrates exactly what I’ve said countless times, to wit: Sea level is rising at 6″ per century…..for the last 100 years.

            Of course we can’t really measure the sea level from before then, so the chart’s depiction of what was going on prior to that, say during the Little Ice Age (when it was REALLY, REALLY cold, ha,ha) is “a reconstruction,” but no matter.

            So we have 6″ per century of sea rise. BFD (just like I’ve been saying).

            Thanks for this.

            FLOODs
            Of course this chart is for the US only. Floods are hard to track because they happen on a scale to small for any of the GCM’s to measure. But what I like about this chart is that it suggests a reason why the claimed water vapor feedback that’s supposed to jack up warming from more CO2 from 1.1C (all that physics directly can support) by 2.5-3X to get CO2 forcing into a danger zone…..just isn’t there. The water vapor feedback isn’t there because the water vapor isn’t there. In other words more warmth from say CO2 forcing creates more water vapor for sure. But it also contains more rain, which the boys at the IPCC seem to have left out of their equations. More rain could create more floods. Of course this chart, as I said, is only for the US. For more rain to create more floods your really need the rain to be “severe rain strorms” or for the rain to be in really dry or impermeable regions (“flash floods”). But for sure more rain can’t be bad for crops. And of course rain cleans the air of dust, soot, and even CO2.

            (continued below)

          • david russell

            (response to ROO2’s house of cards, continued):

            “Let’s look at acceleration”, ROOS says and then points to …..wait for it….. “a probabilistic reconstruction”!!!! Bwahahahaa

            I think now is a good time to recall Ronald Coase’s quip: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess.”

            Fact is that the raw tidal gauge record of 225 long standing tidal gauges world wide show an average 1.48mm per year sea rise with NO RECENT ACCELERATION. 1.48mm is about 6″ per century BTW, which is what ROO2’s first chart shows. So how to explain the what’s going on? Well the entire increase ‘acceleration’ is contemporaneous with the establishment of the satellite sea level measure system, which “shows” 3mm per year sea level rise — 100% more than the tidal gauge raw data. Now here’s the rabbit in the hat trick: So they adjust the tidal gauge raw data based on the satellites!!!!! And voila, problem solved. Bwahahaha. Such is the science.

            Of course we can actually see the tidal gauges. The satellites are 1300km away hanging in space in orbit with locations unknown to accuracy more than a few centimeters and using 2-4cm wave length radar. How likely is it that such devices can record to an accuracy of 1 mm per year? Pretty unlikely.

            Or, as the tidal gauges only measure the sea level at the coasts (the only places that matter to human life and property), maybe there’s a giant mountain of water building up in the middle of the deep oceans?!! Bwahahahaaaaha.

          • ROO2

            Wow! ROO2 has been up all night

            Still living on a flat Earth I see.

            His first chart demonstrates exactly what I’ve said countless times, to wit: Sea level is rising at 6″ per century…..for the last 100 years.

            *Guffaw*

            With a 100 year resolution? evenminded was absolutely spot on about you.

            Actually, not even. It’s only for coastal Floods.

            It’s coastal flooding from sea level rise, the subject of this discussion, you utter dimwit.

            Floods are hard to track because they happen on a scale to small for any of the GCM’s to measure.

            ROTFLMAO. You are clueless.

            Hurricanes cause costal flooding. It’s interesting to note that we are currently in a very long drought of land falling hurricanes in the US. More than interesting, really. It tends to belie this chart somewhat, no?

            No, not at all. What happens to the severity of flooding which is increasing in the absence of hurricane landfalls when you next get some that do hit?

            That question might be beyond your capability to form any rational response.

          • david russell

            Squirm, squiggle all you want. I obliterated you. Not that I expect you to admit it. But I’m not really posting to you, rather than others.

            Sea level rise shows no recent acceleration based on the raw tidal gauge data of 225 long standing gauges. That’s public record.

          • ROO2

            I obliterated you.

            By going off in completely the wrong direction talking about climate models and rainfall when we were discussing sea level rise?

            You are both an idiot and a moron.

          • david russell

            I brought up rainfall in 2 regards: 1) you can’t have floods without rainfall — strong rainfall really and that is impossible to track by GCMs because their grid parameterizations are too big to capture individual storms; and 2) rainfall is the endpoint of increased evaporation and therefore explains why there is no increase in atmospheric water vapor even with warming (in words you should understand: what goes up must come down). So the water vapor feedback that jacks up climate sensitivity beyond the 1.1C that the actual physics supports is a chimera.

          • ROO2

            you can’t have floods without rainfall

            B’jesus. I didn’t think it was possible, but it seems you are vying with maltow for the most stupid person on the internet.

            That really is some accomplishment, but nothing to be proud of.

          • david russell

            And your point is……?

            Oh, I get it. You go to the bathroom. Flush. And there’s always a flood.

          • ROO2

            Yes, groundwater extraction is another factor elevating sea levels, you complete and utter moron.

          • david russell

            One of us indeed is a moron. That would be you. Subsidence is not sea level rise, although to a moron it might appear to be. Nor is land rise an example of sea level decline.

          • ROO2

            One of us indeed is a moron.

            Indeed.

            Subsidence is not sea level rise, although to a moron it might appear to be.

            Had you read Kopp et al. 2016 you would have reaslised that they correct for regionally varying GIA, tectonics, and natural sediment compaction.

            It seems we have found our moron, you.

          • david russell

            Yes, if the data don’t show any more than a 6″ per century sea-level rise, then ignore the data (oh, I mean, “make adjustments”).

            Some places are subsiding and some going the opposite way and most are stable. But the average of 225 tidal gauge show only 6″ per century when you mix them all together.

          • ROO2

            Yes, if the data don’t show any more than a 6″ per century sea-level rise, then ignore the data (oh, I mean, “make adjustments”).

            The satellite measured sea level rise rate is currently 3.4mm/yr.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

            That’s just under 12 ” per century. That’s what is called an acceleration compared to your figure.

            As have been replicated through considerable other research.

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/full/nature14093.html

            when you mix them all together

            *Guffaw*

          • david russell

            Yes 3.4mm per year is quite a bit more than the 1.48mm the tidal gauges show. Must be a giant mountain of water out their in the middle of the oceans? Or maybe the satellites are wrong, given their radar is only 2cm to 4cm in bandwidth and their exactly location in space isn’t precisely known.

            In any event. I live in the real world, not the “adjusted” world.

          • ROO2

            “Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 +/- 0 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010, consistent with prior estimates from tide gauge records”

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/full/nature14093.html

            In any event. I live in the real world, not the “adjusted” world.

            Indeed, you do live in a world devoid of science. Have fun on your flat Earth.

          • david russell

            Right you are. Thanks for proving what I said, namely the tidal gauge data is more than doubled from the actual signal.

            Only a doofus would believe that.

          • ROO2

            The tidal data that does not account the rise or fall of the landmass onto which it is fixed.

            Only a doofus would suggest such stupidity. But then to account for such factors you have no scientific control and claim, “you mix them all together”.

            Perhaps you should stick to making cakes and leave the science to the grown ups.

          • david russell

            It really doesn’t matter, does it? Let’s say the sea level is rising 10 inches per year, but the land mass is rising 11 inches per year. Who cares? Of couse thats not what’s happening. Some places are sinking and even one inch per century of sea rise will still spell doom for them.

            For sure no one cares what the satellites say or what the “adjusted” tidal gauges say at the coast where you live.

            All that matters is the raw measurement for where you happen to live. And while this varies from place to place, overall sEA level is rising AS ACTUALLY MEASURED ON THE COAST LINES at 6″ per century on average..

          • david russell

            ….and therefore a specific tidal gauge record would be deceptive. But over 225 long standing gauges,….. not so much. Read for yourself:

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/04/11/broken-altimetry-225-tide-gauges-show-sea-level-rising-only-1-48-mm-per-year-less-than-half-the-satellite-claimed-rate/#sthash.2CMk1rRo.dpbs

          • ROO2

            Read for yourself:

            “Their measurements are distorted by “sea-level rise” caused by thermal expansion”

            WT actual F.

            You really are an idiot and a moron.

          • david russell

            There is no thermal expansion at the coasts. Your above is another way of saying “there’s a mountain of water building up in the middle of the oceans.”

            Whether the “mountain of water” is plausible or not, is surely is of no concern to us humans…. BECAUSE WE DON’T LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OCEANS.

            The “mountain of water” thesis is implausible to me because it suggests some mysterious force is counteracting gravity, and keeping this mountain from flowing to the coasts. Of course empirical fact trumps theory and if there is such a mountain, well I’d expect someone would be able to explain why it doesn’t slosh its way to the coasts.

            Thermal expansion happen but it happens most where the water is deepest. But that notion is also flawed because the oceans are warmed by the sun an the sun only penetrates 100M (maybe 200M). Anyway this solar warming is distributed in the oceans only in what’s called the MIXING LAYER which is a couple hundred meters or so deep and doesn’t directly warm the deep ocean (which is VERY COLD). This makes the “thermal expansion” theory IMPLAUSIBLE (absent something completely undiscovered like undersea increased volcanic activity)., not because there is no thermal expansion, but because it should affect some huge percentage of the oceans equally (i.e., any part of the ocean at least as deep as 200M).

            No. this thermal expansion notion explains nothing.

            Assuming the tidal gauges and the satellites are both accurate, the only explanation that makes sense is that the land masses of the planet on average are rising 2mm per year, which resolves the difference between the 1.48mm annual sea rise the tidal gauges show and the 3.4mm the satellites show (the difference being the amount of rising of the continents).

            I’m not entirely happy with this explanation because the Maldives tidal gauges show only 1.7-1.8mm per year sea rise which suggests not only the continents are rising but also the islands.

            I could believe the continents are all rising as say in rebound mode since the last ice age. But the Maldives? I dunno. I’m still leaning toward that the satellites are overstating and the tidal gauges are accurate.

          • ROO2

            There is no thermal expansion at the coasts.

            So the volume of the oceans increases as they warm, but this has no effect on the water level at the coast?

            *Guffaw*

            No doubt you will provide a scientific mechanism for this.

            The “mountain of water” thesis is implausible to me because it suggests some mysterious force is counteracting gravity

            Gravity is not some homogeneous constant and the planet is not a perfect sphere. Given the density of water is less than rock the gravitational pull can be less in the middle of an ocean as compared to the coast. What effect do you think that might have?

            Thermal expansion happen but it happens most where the water is deepest.

            *faceplam*

            the only explanation that makes sense is that the land masses of the planet on average are rising 2mm per year

            There are many other factors that need to be accounted for.

            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo901.html

          • david russell

            1. If there is thermal expansion, it can only be from the sun and thus only affect the ~200M mixing layer of the oceans.

            2. At depths less than 200M there’s less thermal expansion.

            3. At the coastline there’s the least thermal expansion, because ocean depth drops below 200M and tapers off to 0M..

            Conclusion: Thermal expansion only materially impacts the 99% of the oceans beyond the coastal waters.

            Logic would suggest this “elevated” mass of water over 99% of the oceans would slosh into the coastal waters, but tidal gauge record show only 1.48mm per year on average of sea-level rise, not the 3.4mm shown in the deep oceans by the satellites.

            How to explain the discrepancy:

            1) One or both measurement sets are wrong.
            2) Both measurement sets are correct and therefore either:
            a) there’s mountain of water in the deep oceans building up; or
            b) the land masses are all rising at about 2mm per year.

            I don’t see any other possibilities.

          • david russell

            Oh, and your ‘gravity varies” idea is ludicrous on its face. Gravity is inversely proportional to the distance-squared between the centers of mass between objects. The force of gravity on the surface of the ocean does not have anything to do with the surface being water, or rock, or lead, or a feather.

          • ROO2

            Thanks david.

            Your complete lack of basic scientific understanding that you have just openly displayed to the world is more than enough to conclude that you do not have even the first clue about climate science either.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid

            Of interest are there other articles that you are commenting on providing your massive expertise?
            Latest techniques in neurosurgery?
            Nuclear fusion?
            Combating antibiotic resistance?

            Or are they just about the moon landings being faked, 9/11 was an inside job, Elvis is still alive, chemtrails, etc?

          • david russell

            That was indeed an interesting link. Certainly seems to complicate determining the global sea level. Of course that’s a problem only for the satellites, not the tidal gauges.

            This is just another reason to be skeptical of the satellite record.

            We coastal dwellers need only be mindful of the tidal gauge raw data. The pointy heads at NASA or wherever can puzzle through the complexities of dealing with the odd topography of the oceans.

          • david russell

            Regarding your link above, this suggests that the satellite claims of 3.4mm sea rise are less believable than even I thought before. Thanks.

          • ROO2

            You therefore misunderstand the content of the paper.

            Global average changes are as determined, that’s the current scientific position. I hope you comprehend what global average means?

            Local changes are effected by both the rise in overall levels, but many local factors as the paper states.

            Indeed the US eastern seaboard will see accelerated sea level rises in places above the satellite average as a result of the AMO switching and continued ice loss from the poles.

          • david russell

            The satellites say 3.4mm per year. The tidal gauges say 1.48mm on average. We live on the coastal regions, so the tidal gauges are the metric of relevance to threats to human life and property.

            There may be “many factors” but they all net out to “1.48mm per year sea rise at the coast.”

            Claims of what “we will see” are predictions. Climate science hasn’t shown much skill at prediction.

          • ROO2

            The tide gauges agree with the satellite data.

            “”Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 +/- 0 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010, consistent with prior estimates from tide gauge records””

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/full/nature14093.html

            Do try to keep up.

          • david russell

            You can’t be that dumb. On the other hand, if anyone can, you can.

            The data in question are the data as measured, not “as adjusted.” We not going to drown in “adjusted sea level rise.” The raw data show LESS THAN HALF the adjusted data. And how do you thing they make the adjustments? “Well, the satellites show…..” Such is the science.

          • ROO2

            Hurrah!

            If we take the global average of some very sparse tide gauge measurements and do not account for the land movement on which they are attached, then Miami may last longer than anticipated.

            However, if you consider the physical sea level rise and land movement at Miami, much of it is already lost from our emissions to date.

            People already realise this, hence the downturn in people buying property near to the sea.

          • david russell

            For sure, since only the tidal gauges matter, there are places where the land is sinking and for those places it wouldn’t matter how fast (or “even if”) the sea level were rising. They’ll all eventually be in trouble. Likewise, places that are rising faster than the sea level would NEVER be in trouble even if the sea level were rising a foot per year. Such is math.

            People should be aware of this, but South Beach real estate is going for $3000 per square foot, so those owners don’t seem very aware.

            Very few humans can think very far into the future. We just don’t have the wiring I suppose.

            Miami has a different problem, namely that it has a gravity drainage system for an area with de-minimus elevation. Plus its sewage system is old, antiquated, and likely clogged up. A heavy rain takes forever to drain away. Moreover Miami has a salinization problem with sea water encroaching on its underground reservoirs. At some point this must be addressed and will cost a lot of money. But nothing will be done until the next disaster strikes.

          • ROO2

            since only the tidal gauges matter

            They don’t, and the GIA adjusted tide gauges agree with the satellite data.

            Likewise, places that are rising faster than the sea level would NEVER be in trouble even if the sea level were rising a foot per year. Such is math.

            Your math is non-existent. Our emissions to date have locked in around a 2.5 metre sea level rise. The effect of emissions by the point in time the planet goes carbon net neutral will be 5 to 9 metres of sea level rise.

            Miami is already lost to the sea. What mankind has emitted into the atmosphere to date has condemned the place. It’s just a matter of time before people are left with stranded assets and the Government assistance dries up, the insurers have already largely walked away from having any liability.

          • david russell

            For all you ‘end of the world’ nutjobs out there, here’s something you can really sink your teeth into (pun intended):

            Sinkhole doomsday notice:

            https://www.youtube.com/embed/TLUgEXI9RYI?rel=0

          • ROO2

            the electric universe theory

            OMG.

            Sorry david. You now have zero credibility. Thanks for playing.

          • david russell

            You sound …..well,…skeptical. bwahahaha. Rather out of character for you. And I thought you’d fall for just about any doomsday theory. Maybe your lunacy does have limits.

          • ROO2

            All scientists are skeptical david.

            A person who would posts such a link as yours is neither.

          • david russell

            Some scientists have a sense of humor. If you were a scientist, you wouldn’t be one of them. Not only aren’t you very smart, but you are stolid as well. You must be the life of the party down at the trailer park.

          • ROO2

            Some scientists have a sense of humor.

            Which suggests some do not.

            If you were a scientist, you wouldn’t be one of them.

            Why? Have you read my tarot cards, tea leaves, or do you have a large crystal ball?

            “Sorry david. You now have zero credibility. Thanks for playing.”

          • david russell

            Why did it take you a whole day to come up with such a pathetic post? And it wasn’t funny, either.

          • ROO2

            Unlike you, my life does not revolve around permanently posting lies and dimwitted commentary on the internet, as I have a life.

            Just keep this in the back of your mind every time you post one of your comments about science:

            “Sorry david. You have zero credibility. Thanks for playing.”

            It will be like an instantaneous response from an omnipresent me reminding you that the content of your post is likely to be Derp with an exceptionally high probability.

          • david russell

            So you say you actually do have a life!! Well, that really IS funny.

          • ROO2

            “”Sorry david. You have zero credibility. Thanks for playing.””

          • david russell

            That was mildly cute the first time. Now its just an indication you have no imagination. Say something worth reading [second request].

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            LOL

          • ROO2

            And I thought you’d fall for just about any doomsday theory. Maybe your lunacy does have limits.

            You think BBQman is a lunatic?

            It seems you are without consensus.

          • david russell

            I’m an expert on climate science. What you call “the electric universe” theory I’d never heard of until it was posted here.

            I’m not looking to become an expert in this theory until and unless it gains some currency.

            I will let BBQman speak for himself.

          • ROO2

            I’m an expert on climate science.

            No, you are some sad old retired dude in Florida who is some crap keyboard warrior to the fossil fuel companies, because you do not even understand the subject on which you comment. At least be honest with yourself david.

            Oh, none of your climate science publications appear of google scholar. Why is that? Is it your inability to comprehend the concept of absolute sea level rise?

            *Guffaw*

            “Sorry david. You have zero credibility. Thanks for playing.”

          • david russell

            I thought you said you have a life. And here your are whining to me about…. well, nothing really.

            I obliterate you at every inflection point and now you are just left with moaning and crying. Man up. Go back to that real life you say you have.

          • ROO2

            I’m not whining to you david. I’m pointing out you are an uneducated dimwit, something that you yourself have provided more than sufficient evidence to substantiate such a point.

            You also seem to be suffering from sever Dunning-Kruger too.

            May I recommend that you quickly administer some basic education to see if that helps?

          • david russell

            You wish. I know more about this than you and demonstrate it with each interaction. Your above is a contentless boast.

          • ROO2

            I know more about this than you and all of the world scientists who are expert in this area.

            Moreover, you also claim to be an expert in climate science.

            Would you mind linking to some of your peer reviewed papers? Google scholar showed up nothing for a D Russell in climate related papers. Funny that.

          • david russell

            I am not a climate scientist, so why would I have written any peer-reviewed papers? All I said was that I’m an expert on the science. You aren’t claiming that only academics know the science, are you? That would be silly of you.

          • evenminded

            He’s claiming that you don’t understand basic science because it’s a fact that you don’t.

            You don’t understand Fourier’s law and you couldn’t solve a differential equation if your life depended on it.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            You don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t know who I intended this for in the first place, so how could you?.

          • evenminded

            Of course I know what I’m talking about. I have interacted with you on several occasions and you have demonstrated that you are a mathematically incompetent, scientifically illiterate moron.

            The fact that you think that you are an expert in climate science is laughable at best, and more likely just sad due to your diminishing mental capabilities.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Sadly you are acting like an idiot. AnAussieinSwitzerland referenced your above post as “the reason why you think this (ie., what Trump might do)” but of course he was wrong and therefore so are you.

            I looked at his link to your above and responded to him (or so I thought), but had actually moved my location here and thus my response went to you mistakenly.

          • evenminded

            Your mental capabilities really are in a severe decline. My post was in reference to ROO2’s statement that you are not a climate science expert.

            I’m not wrong about the fact that you are a mathematically incompetent, scientifically illiterate moron.

            You have proven that several times over.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            You still don’t get it, do you? It is you who are an idiot and a moron.

          • evenminded

            It’s you that doesn’t get it David. Look at the thread that I responded to.

            You stated you are an expert in climate science. ROO2 stated that you are a delusional fool to even think to claim that.

            I confirmed that you are a mathematically incompetent, scientifically illiterate moron.

            You have proven that several times over.

            You’re an idiot.

          • ROO2

            All I said was that I’m an expert on the science.

            “I’m an expert on climate science.”

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/2016_on_track_to_smash_record_for_warmest_year_globally/#comment-3023172903

            You are clearly a dimwit.

          • david russell

            It must be awful for you to be constantly bested by such a dimwit as me. Maybe you should cry about it.

          • ROO2

            You are just a crap liar with no scientific understanding, and no concept of continuity.

            You are here to be laughed at. You do a great job.

            We collectively thank you for providing such pseudoscientific humour and dimwittery to your perceived ongoing debate over settled science.

          • david russell

            Very eloquent rebuttal. I can almost see the spittle flying out of your mouth.

            You don’t sound much like you’re laughing. You sound angry. That’s because I clean your clock every time you assert your climate science nonsense. Come on. Give me some new whoppers like “4-9 meters of sea rise by 2100.” I really could use a laugh myself.

          • ROO2

            You are just a crap liar with no scientific understanding, and no concept of continuity.

            Give me some new whoppers like “4-9 meters of sea rise by 2100.”

            Ah, so you should be easily able to find and link to the post where I stated “by 2100”? Unless you are a crap liar with no concept of continuity that is.

            Thanks for confirming my point by providing evidence of your habitual lying to try and defend your untenable position.

            https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/Science-2015-Dutton-.pdf

            http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full

            http://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13745.full.pdf

            Some more climate science on sea level rise for you to deny above.

          • david russell

            Paleo-climate constructs are unverifiable crap, which means all your links are crap. Paleo climate crap is IMO the ONLY reason why we have this 3C climate sensitivity thesis, which is nowhere to be seen in the data from the modern era. Well not quite “only.” 3C also comes from the Charny Report of 1979, which merely averaged climate sensitivity from 2 accepted climate models at the time. And what were these? Well, Hansen said 4C and Manabe said 2C, so Charny averaged them and wrapped the whole thing in an arbitrary .5C ‘error assumption.’ Voila, 1.5C to 4.5C. Such is climate science.

            Fact is, that sea levels are not rising more now than they have been for the last 100 years or more — 6″ per century at the coastlines, with no recent acceleration.

          • ROO2

            Paleo-climate constructs are unverifiable crap

            The hand waving and clown dancing has start in earnest it seems.

          • david russell

            There’s no evidence in the empirical record AS MEASURED BY MODERN SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTs that climate response to CO2 is more than a degree C or so. NVAP data disconfirm the water vapor positive feedback thesis. Absent these imaginary water vapor feedbacks, the 3C climate response to 2x Co2 collapses.

            Indeed, no one has actually identified how much of the current .8C or so of warming since 1880 is attributable to CO2. Estimates vary all over the lot. Myhre’s formula for CO2 radiative forcing has to assume some percentage of the warming has been due to CO2 alone, but what is his basis for that? This is merely a matter of plugging in a 40% increase in CO2 to the formula and comparing that result with 3.71W/M2 x the 1.1C warming that 3.71W/M2 produces. From actual temperature and CO2 ppm measurements, it would seem “in excess of 50%” ( .55C of .8C actually). But John Cook’s paper examining 12000 climate science papers only found 64 papers specifically attributing CO2 to more than 50% of the cause of modern warming.

          • ROO2

            There’s no evidence in the empirical record AS MEASURED BY MODERN SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTs that climate response to CO2 is more than a degree C or so.

            Do try some science, there’s a good chap:

            http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~earpmf/papers/Forster_ARreview20DEC_clean_accepted.pdf

            Absent these imaginary water vapor feedbacks

            “The evidence of a strong and positive water vapor feedback is overwhelming. Observations of the response of the atmosphere to events like the eruption of Mount Pinatubo and El Niño cycles show quite clearly that changes in water vapor lead to enhanced trapping of infrared radiation when the climate warms [Soden et al., 2002; Soden et al., 2005; Forster and Collins, 2004; Dessler et al., 2008]. For a more complete summary of why we’re so confident, see Dessler et al. [2009]” Andrew Dessler

            Some more science for you to digest:

            http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/DesslerS09.pdf

            John Cook’s paper examining 12000 climate science papers only found 64 papers specifically attributing CO2 to more than 50% of the cause of modern warming.

            And how many attribution papers were there that suggested less than 50%, if you ignore the debunked Spencer and Lindzen ones?

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “I’m an expert on climate science.”

            Ahahahahaha!!!

          • david russell

            What’s an Aussie doing in the Alps? Hiding out? Prepping for the coming 9m of sea rise ROO2 says we might get by century end? I’m not surprised you find me funny. The Swiss have no sense of humor, so you must be starved for laughs.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Lol

            Diversion noted.

            The Swiss German language is noted for constructing words in order to convey the full meaning without losing anything due to brevity.

            For example “youareamoron”.

          • david russell

            I see all your time in Cuckoo Land has left you without a sense of humor.

            Here’s a construct for you:

            Swiss German is to German as Climate Science is to science.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            “I see all your time.”

            Your babbling has become incoherent.

          • david russell

            My computer froze up. Look again. “I see all your time in Cuckoo Land has left you without a sense of humor.”

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Ok. Here’s one for you ……..

            A racist, a misogynist, a crook and a liar go into a bar.

            The bar man looks up and says ” Hi Donald”.

          • david russell

            I never expected Trump to win, but I had to vote for him (holding my nose). Imagine my surprise when he won.

            So soon he will control the US Presidency, both houses of Congress and likely appoint 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices.

            I predict the following:

            1) Neutering or termination of the EPA (transfer of it’s clean air/water responsibilities to say Interior).

            2) Termination of renewable energy Federal subsidies

            3) Severe cut backs at NASA and NOAA.

            4) Termination of research grants to support the warmist dogma.

            5) Approval of the final leg of the Keystone XL pipeline

            6) collapse of the Paris accords as the US pulls out.

            7) termination of UN funding for IPCC by the US.

            8) Opening up of Federal lands for drilling and mining

            9) massive US growth as businesses all over the world come the US to do business with it’s cheap energy, low taxes and enlightened regulations.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            A more likely result is that after causing untold damage to the US economy and international reputation he will leave office in handcuffs after getting caught with his tiny fingers in the cookie jar.

          • david russell

            Anything is possible. I see a different path:

            1) Trump gets say a 15% corporate tax rate passed, which includes free (or low tax) repatriation of the $2.2T US corporations are holding overseas to avoid full taxation on repatriation.

            2) Trump gets many job and business killing regulations killed and replaced with enlightened, pro-business, pro-job regulations

            3) Trump gets a big infrastructure bill passed to rebuild bridges, roads, tunnels, perhaps the electric grid.

            4) The Fed moves to “helicopter money” as policy (they print money with out borrowing in the capital markets, but rather take the hit on their own balance sheet.

            5) Lower personal tax cuts, too.

            Result: Massive deficits, but even more massive growth in the US.

            Trump re-elected in 4 years.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland
          • david russell

            You aren’t thinking clearly. The reason I think this is because that’s my take on the course of US politics. As an Aussie much of US politics would seem opaque, I imagine.
            If Truot is going to get these things done, he needs to move quickly. Paul Ryan already has much of the legislation in hand. Myron Ron Ebell, the new EPA director is already planning to end the war on coal and on CO2. Trump can dismantle a lot just by executive order as well.
            It’s going to be dark times for you climate alarmists.

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            As an Aussie see US politics laid bare without the poison of faux news outlets and Alt Right shock jocks.

          • david russell

            Do you now? I lived in England for 3 years and spent a summer in Zurich. Europe has its own distortions.

            When you say Trump will be led away in chains, that suggests you have no clue about American law or politics. But no matter. For sure Trump is going to be bad news for you climate alarmists, given his own position and that of Bannon and Ebell.

            Europe will suffer. The Euro will continue to decline. The EU may break up, although it may take longer than anyone thinks. It’s an unsustainable experiment IMO. Smart of the Swiss never to join.

          • evenminded

            That gave me a good laugh too. The moron that doesn’t understand Fourier’s law and wouldn’t know a differential equation if he saw one, let alone how to solve it, thinks he is a climate science expert.

            Bless his heart.

          • ROO2

            Delusion takes many forms. As a result there are many new entrants willing to take the D-K crown from RealOldOne2. Time will tell.

          • BBQman

            Now ROO2, Tom asked me to not insult others on this thread, do you believe you are a special snowflake that can ignore the rules and insult people as you please?

            It’s bad enough that you don’t pocess the needed knowledge to write out a summary on how CO2 drives the climate in a quantifiable format, which has never happened! But to waste your value time calling names like a child, when you could otherwise dedicate yourself to studying the Hadley cell portion of our jet stream as I told you a month ago, how old are you anyway?

          • ROO2

            Had you to ability to read with comprehension you would have realised that it is david that thinks your lunacy is without limits given your ability to “fall for just about any doomsday theory”.

            It’s bad enough that you don’t pocess[sic] the needed knowledge to write out a summary on how CO2 drives the climate in a quantifiable format

            Given that this is basic physics that has been well established long before you were even born, that you have yet to grasp the basics of throughout your whole life even when a considerable resource of teaching material is available online, I fail to see the relevance of your request.

            when you could otherwise dedicate yourself to studying the Hadley cell portion of our jet stream as I told you a month ago

            Ah, was this the Hadley Cell that you allege prevents the mixing of gases in the atmosphere, which is easily debunked by concurrent increase in OC2 concentrations at all monitoring stations around the globe? I remember.

            Oh, and you should tell your friends to not be so open about your use of your votebot, perhaps you need to re-read the Disqus terms of service? You’d not want to be banned. 😉

            “First time I’ve been banned since I started my profile 4 years ago and likely at the behest of your blood-sucking TrollTicks ;)”

            https://disqus.com/home/channel/politicalrhetoricbusters/discussion/channel-politicalrhetoricbusters/donald_trump_just_told_america_his_biggest_lie_yet/#comment-3030740645

          • BBQman

            Trump is our President now, the EPA will be abolished, all green industry tax credits and subsidies will soon be revoked. I have no need to toy with you any longer, you are just a useful tool of soros, China and OPEC….you are dismissed…run along now.

          • ROO2

            Trump is our President now

            I think you’ll find that is still Obama. It seems that you do not understand how the system of Government in your own country works.

            the EPA will be abolished

            The functions of which will simply be merged into another agency if it occurs, unless you are suggesting that will be a complete cessation on the prevention of pollution to the electorates air and drinking water? There might be a tad of opposition to such a suggestion.

            all green industry tax credits and subsidies will soon be revoked

            Revoked? Wow. That’s certainly going to make enemies of a considerable number of investors. It’s a novel way to make America great again, stifling investment. Look forward to seeing what a car crash that turns out to be.

          • BBQman

            So the free market concept is unfamiliar to you?

          • ROO2

            Yeah I’m all for a free market that incorporates the polluter pays principle to cover any negative externalities. The alternative of a communist state isn’t appealing.

          • BBQman

            You and I agree on controlling and punishment of polluters, but this thread is not about polluters, it’s about my top post that points out facts showing proof that 2016 is not the hottest year on record, you must include ship logs and other publications as part of the global temperature record as well.

            CO2 is still rising 1.8 ppm per year and the earth’s land temperature is falling, those are facts my little tunnel vision effected blood tick! But worry not, all those green energy tax credits and subsidies will soon vanish!

          • ROO2

            You and I agree on controlling and punishment of polluters

            Really? Then abolishing the EPA would run contrary to your beliefs.

            but this thread is not about polluters, it’s about my top post that points out facts showing proof that 2016 is not the hottest year on record

            But alas, your “facts” are nothing of the sort. You clearly are unaware what the GISP ice core record shows.

            CO2 is still rising 1.8 ppm per year and the earth’s land temperature is falling

            The land temperature? My how one now has to cherrypick.

            Let’s just check what is happening with the temperature of the planets landmasses:

            https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/62610/403756a0.pdf?sequence=1&bcsi_scan_E956BCBE8ADBC89F=/Y/VMEOg7cUwaNrKkhQsAnqxb/DcAAAAVAybOA==&bcsi_scan_filename=403756a0.pdf

            My, they are warming. Funny shaped graph too, it’s like some sort of stick used for playing sport, any ideas?

          • Robert

            That last line might be too subtle….

          • ROO2

            I remember my first banning from mother jones, I was doing battle with about 12 of their regulars at the same time, they were just like Roo2, evenminded, CB, Robert, jmac, Anaussieinswitzerland, BartR and a few others of their ilk who refuse to examine the facts. They are all like

            …the worlds scientists who have evaluated all of the facts, and the worlds governments who are all aware of the facts.

            There is you, with your colouring in crayons, and a number of others who object to scientific fact, but the world moves forward without you.

            https://disqus.com/home/channel/politicalrhetoricbusters/discussion/channel-politicalrhetoricbusters/donald_trump_just_told_america_his_biggest_lie_yet/#comment-3031059219

          • BBQman

            ROO2, this is just like the way you look at climate science, you take things out of context!
            You just took a small bit from one of my other posts to someone else on another thread and attempted to change the meaning of my words….shame on you….if you want to ever have any credibility, you must stop taking things out of context. Here is the complete post of mine that you have plagiarized a few words from, have you no standards sir?

            10 hours ago
            I remember my first banning from mother jones, I was doing battle with about 12 of their regulars at the same time, they were just like Roo2, evenminded, CB, Robert, jmac, Anaussieinswitzerland, BartR and a few others of their ilk who refuse to examine the facts. They are all like little demented spider monkeys in the zoo, slinging their nasty shait at you, they never answer questions, no, they only know how to run people down the old “nothing but CO2 rat holes”, I have attempted in vain to show them some of the primary climate drivers, but they are all stuck on stupid while doing what OPEC, soros, podesta and China wants them to do, these AGW settled science folks behavior is technically treason against the human race.
            I see myself spending much less, if any time over there now, Trump has been elected and hopefully will Strip the EPA of all power and funding, He should also stop many if not all green energy tax credits and subsidies.
            By the way, it was ROO2 that just replied to me with your post above to me attempting some how to change your words to me, to mean something different then what you the author meant!

            ROO2, you are a fraud!

          • ROO2

            What is out of context there?

            All of those people that you have listed as far as I am aware are stating the same position of the worlds scientists who have evaluated all of the facts, and the worlds governments who are all aware of the facts.

            Which facts that these people, which must include the worlds scientists and the worlds Governments, are these people not examining as you claim?

          • BBQman

            Any investor who depends on tax credits and/or subsidies to survive are not part of the future, we are entering a new realm of technology ROO2, better pull your big boy pants on and catch up, that looks uncomfortable, how did you fall in there? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa234b87848a57d7d44de5660ba98eb4a5964b02eae8ad9048150b3b581905eb.png

          • ROO2

            Any investor who depends on tax credits and/or subsidies to survive are not part of the future

            It’ll be interesting to see how well the US oil and gas industry gets on when they lose their $700 billion subsidies and have to start paying their own way for their externalities.

            http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

          • ShawnNJ ✓President Trump

            That’s funny but sick at the same time!

          • BBQman

            Yes, @ROO2 should be more careful.

          • ShawnNJ ✓President Trump

            January 20, 2017 can’t come soon enough!

          • david russell

            Thank you for pointing out another problem with satellite sea level rise conclusions: This a quote from your link:

            GPS satellites, orbiting about the center of gravity of the Earth, can only measure heights relative to a geocentric reference ellipsoid. To obtain one’s geoidal height, a raw GPS reading must be corrected. Conversely, height determined by spirit leveling from a tidal measurement station, as in traditional land surveying, will always be geoidal height.
            ———-
            Therefore your link describes a problem for satellites, but not tidal gauges, just as I said.

          • ROO2

            And the tide gauges have to be adjusted for the glacial isostatic adjustment owing to movement of the landmass.

            Both corrected datasets agree with each other.

          • david russell

            You are studiously obtuse. Why is that?

          • ROO2

            As I have told you before there are many factors that effect sea levels.

            Science is interested in determining the physical rise in sea absolute sea level, such that sea level budgets can be considered and closed where the evidence permits, such that the cause of the sea level rise can be attributed.

          • david russell

            Just as long as we all agree that coastal sea levels are rising on average less than half what the satellites report,and it’s the coastal sea levels only that put human lives and property at risk.

          • ROO2

            Just as long as we all agree that coastal sea levels are rising on average less than half what the satellites report

            No, at the same level. The absolute rise of sea level from the tide gauges is in agreement with that of the satellite data.

            If you want to take an average of the isostatic rebound, thereby taking the large degree of rising landmass in Alaska following the melt of the several mile thick ice sheets since the ice age, and thereby attribute that signal to an average to suggest that sea level rise is not so bad in Miami, then that is your pseudoscience.

            Nobody with half a brain would buy into that.

          • david russell

            I’m thinking that comedian, Ron White’s skit “You Can’t Fix Stupid” was about you.

            You worry about drowning in “adjusted sea level rise” all you want. I’m not worried about actual 6″ per century sea level rise.

          • ROO2

            I’m thinking

            Yet another evidence free assertion on your part.

            You worry about drowning in “adjusted sea level rise” all you want.

            That depends where you live you tiny minded buffoon.

            I’m not worried about actual 6″ per century sea level rise.

            Because you are some sad old retired person who will possibly not see the effects in their lifetime, but even though the generations to date have locked in over 2.5 metres of future sea level rise, you are here suggesting to others that they continue down that same path creating even greater future sea level rise, displacing millions globally.

            You are a sociopath.

          • david russell

            I told you you are stupid and you go and prove it with your 2.5M of future sea rise. Where’d that come from? Oh, you’re making a 1500 year prediction (it’ll take over 1500 years of 6″ per century to get to 2.5M).

            Geez, you didn’t believe my magnetic waves video, and you believe this?.

          • ROO2

            Geez, you didn’t believe my magnetic waves video, and you believe this?.

            Yet around a 5C increase in global average temperature from the last ice age brought about a 120 metre rise in sea levels.

            We have a large increasing sea level rise compared to relatively static levels over the last 2000 years, coupled with accelerating ice melt on mountain glaciers, the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica?

            Where we get off the burning of old dead stuff roundabout could easily lead to at least a 5-9 metre rise in sea levels, and maybe more.

            You seem unconcerned, and that is fine. Clearly you did not find somebody stupid enough to procreate with and prolong your gene pool. The world is most thankful.

          • david russell

            Nice rant. No pretense to science though. Just a scaredy-cat fantasy.

            I see you’ve increased you 2.5M of sea rise to 5-9M (and maybe more!!!).

            You really are a loon… a doomsday loon. Meanwhile sea levels are rising at 6″ per century with no recent acceleration.

          • ROO2

            It’s a statement of fact.

            I see you’ve increased you 2.5M of sea rise to 5-9M (and maybe more!!!).

            Geez, you said you were a climate scientist, it seems your are struggling with comprehension.

            Metres, small “m”. Oh, you are no scientist? I’m just so, so shocked!

            You really are a loon… a doomsday loon.

            I thought you did not care what happened after you died?

            Though now that a 5-9 m rise in sea level, after you have died, is classed as doomsday what exactly is your issue with continued GHG forcing causing such a sea level rise?

          • david russell

            A meter is a metre. Make sense.

          • ROO2

            Make sense.

            No, you are writing about molar concentrations, and evidently do not understand the difference between a meter and a metre either.

            A triple whammy for somebody who was claiming to be a climate scientist. Science evades you.

          • david russell

            There is no difference between a meter and a metre as lengths. Of course a meter can also be a measuring device, but so what?

            You are kidding about moles, right? Sea level rise is not measured in moles.

            You’re not from the US, are you?

          • ROO2

            No pretense to science though. Just a scaredy-cat fantasy.

            This is all open knowledge and in the published literature david.

            Yes 2.5m sea level rise is expected mid range of sea level rise from 1C of warming, which we have seen since the industrial revolution.

            How much additional sea level rise depending upon who much more GHG we put into the atmosphere. You seem to what to continue that unabated, therefore such ongoing emissions, coupled with the uncertainty of climate sensitivity could very well result in such sea level rises.

            Given the temperatures later this century will surpass those of the Eemian period, where sea level were 5 to 9 metres higher than present, it seems you really have not grasped how much sea level on the planet you live has changed dramatically to relatively small changes in the global average temperature.

            The current acceleration in sea levels observed in the historical record, the increasing rate of land ice melt, and the increasing rate of thermal expansion is more than sufficient on scientific grounds to conclude that it exists.

          • david russell

            Well, we’ve had about 1C of warming already and only 6″ of sea level rise at the coasts. So much for the 2.5M sea rise (or 2.5m, if you prefer).

            Any literature that claims 2.5 meters belongs in the fiction section.

            No one has a clue what the temperature will be by century end, but if CO2 levels were to double from here (another 400ppm, 3,3x more than from the LIA to now) we should get another 1.1C of warmth. And that would require almost 5ppm per year every year for the next 84 years.

            Sea level at the coasts is rising 6″ per century. I’m not worried.

          • ROO2

            Then give me the number of tide gauges you are using for such a statement in combination with the total length of the global coastlines.

          • david russell

            225 long standing tidal gauges.

          • ROO2

            225 long standing tidal gauges.

            and the total length of the world coastlines is what david?

            I need an idea of your sampling rate.

          • david russell

            Look it up. I’m not compelled by your ‘needs.’

          • ROO2

            Try reading with comprehension.

          • david russell

            Try writing something worth reading.

          • ROO2

            So you cannot. Oh well. Your inability is your downfall.

          • david russell

            Snappy diversion. Don’t you have any more goofy climate claims for me to eviscerate?

          • ROO2

            Snappy diversion.

            No. We are still waiting for your sampling rate per unit length.

            I can hear the cogs from here.

          • david russell

            “We?” Do you have multiple personalities? My condolences.

            Your short term memory must be shot. I specifically told you to figure it out for yourself.

          • ROO2

            “We?” Do you have multiple personalities?

            If you were even barely sentient you would have noticed Robert and jmac awaiting your next dollop of Derp.

            Your short term memory must be shot. I specifically told you to figure it out for yourself.

            Yet that request does not appear in the thread.

            Curious. Why the sudden evasion?

          • david russell

            I told you 2 days ago “I’m not responsible for your needs” in reference to your “need to know how long the world’s coastlines are.

          • ROO2

            I told you 2 days ago “I’m incompetent, please stop asking me questions”

            Indeed.

          • david russell

            You might want to delete your above as revealing that you are both stupid and dishonest. I prefer you not…. for the same reason.

          • ROO2

            So is it incompetent, or are you an “expert in climate science”?

            Pwhahahahahaha!

          • evenminded

            LOL – I just used the same expression in response to the recent “alt-right” (i.e. Nazi) gathering in the US where they were chanting Heil Trump. WT actual F.

          • ROO2

            Ah, the Washington meeting with Richard Spencer. Indeed.

            Very similar to what is occurring in the UK it seems. People believe that they have been given a platform to express their fascist views.

          • ROO2

            I used that same expression yesterday when RealOldOne2 wrote:

            “Here is a little background. I am a degreed scientist with over 4 decades of professional experience, including thermodynamics, heat transfer and computer modeling. I began a detailed study of the climate change issue in 2007. I came to the conclusion that the empirical data didn’t support the alarmist claims of the global warmists. I began commenting on climate change blog articles, pointing out the flaws in the warmist’s claims and statements.”

          • evenminded

            Even okulaer can’t get his thoughts straight.

            “‘Energy’ per se might move in both directions. ‘Heat’ (net energy) ALWAYS and ONLY flows spontaneously from hot to cold, high potential to low potential.”

            https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/on-heat-the-laws-of-thermodynamics-and-the-atmospheric-warming-effect/

          • ROO2

            They are an idiot, it is to be expected.

            I’m still amazed that RealOldOne2 claims to have a degree in science. I’m not sure whether this is a lie, true but he is incompetent, or true and he uses this as a veil to attract unscientific dimwits to groom with his paedoscience.

          • david russell

            So tidal gauges show less sea rise because of thermal expansion.

            Yes, I am too big of an idiot to understand that nonsense.

            Actually you say “..by sea-level rise (caused by thermal expansion)” which makes it clear with no ambiguity that whoever said this is a dunce…… as are you to swallow it whole.

            Who ties your shoe laces for you?

          • ROO2

            So tidal gauges show less sea rise because of thermal expansion.

            No.

            which makes it clear with no ambiguity that whoever said this is a dunce

            Agreed. Stop reading crap from pseudoscience blogs please.

            Who ties your shoe laces for you?

            Roo’s have no need for shoes.

          • david russell

            I’m reading what you quoted.
            [quote from your above];
            “Their measurements are distorted by “sea-level rise” caused by thermal expansion”
            [end quote]

            I accept the above is crap. I said as much.

          • ROO2

            Then you get an upvote from me for stating that the content of Notrickzone where the quote was taken is indeed crap and we are in agreement.

          • david russell

            No. Just the opposite. I think your post is crap because: 1) you didn’t idientify where your quote was from; 2) you didn’t identify where the distortion mention is occurring (indeed I presumed you meant at the coastlines where the tidal gauges are); and 3) you took the quote out of context.

            Here’s the full quote:

            Their measurements are distorted by “sea-level rise” caused by thermal expansion when the upper layer of the ocean warms. But that is a strictly local effect, that doesn’t affect the quantity of water in the oceans, and doesn’t affect sea-level elsewhere (e.g., at the coasts). Sea-level rise only matters at the coasts, but satellite altimeters are incapable of measuring sea-level at the coasts. They can only measure sea-level in the open ocean. Tide gauges measure sea-level at the coasts, where it matters. Also, tide gauge measurements of sea-level are much higher quality than satellite altimetry measurements.

            You are a dishonest doofus.

          • ROO2

            you didn’t idientify where your quote was from

            In response to your comment “Read for yourself:” with a subsequent link?

            Oh, come come david.

            satellite altimeters are incapable of measuring sea-level at the coasts

            This again is just gibberish nonsense.

            So tell me about the physical mechanism of the thermal expansion of water. Let’s say we fill your bath with cold water, then heat the middle such that the average temperature raises and the water expands, why does the water line on the edge of the bath not increase?

            Also, tide gauge measurements of sea-level are much higher quality than satellite altimetry

            Really? So what is your scientific justification for this? Are you also suggesting that the surface temperature record is also superior than the satellite data?

            How the science deniers like to cherrypick.

          • david russell

            You’ve been obliterated and you are just rambling. The relevant sea level is that at the coasts and AS MEASURED it’s no big deal. End of discussion.

          • ROO2

            It’s been a while, but thanks for providing justification:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

          • david russell

            That was amusing (and thankfully short). This Robin was ahead of his time. Better to not fight and run away and then to live another day.

            Fortunately none of us have to worry about climate change killing us. Unfortunately, we’ll still die of something.

          • Denis Ables

            tsk, tsk. The only meaningful measurement of sea level rise is at the coasts which satellites cannot do.

            In my old days in the Coast Guard, I recall sitting in the North Atlantic and seeing swells between our vessel and nearby shrimp boats make the shrimp boats temporarily disappear from view. How would satellites handle those swells? They exist most of the time. Compared to a 1 or 2 mm rise at the coast, you’re dealing with a swell several feet high.

            Please explain, rather than using ad hominems, you a$$ !

          • ROO2

            The only meaningful measurement of sea level rise is at the coasts

            Where did you get such a stupid idea from?

            which satellites cannot do

            Oh, of course, because it would be impossible to mask off the coast from altimetry measurements:

            http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/coasts/sealevel/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png

            Maybe its the land masses moving round so quickly with the rapid plate tectonics that inhibits such measurements to be made?

            Maybe the scientists have not accounted for the big beasty sea monsters that venture forth unseen from the oceans that have not been accounted for in the signal?

            I recall sitting in the North Atlantic and seeing swells between our vessel and nearby shrimp boats make the shrimp boats temporarily disappear from view

            Oh please tell me you are still in contact with Bubba?

            How would satellites handle those swells

            What do you think the average between the top and bottom of the waveform tell you?

            Please explain, rather than using ad hominems, you a$$ !

            Happy to, P-enis Unable, you tvvat !

          • Denis Ables

            You haven’t bothered to explain how satellite measurements of sea level deal with ongoing ocean swells which can reach dozens of feet above actual sea level. When you have to average or estimate a few millimeters and have to deal with variations of feet, there may be more than a small error involved.

            Since you’re quick to use the term “stupid”. Are you so stupid that you don’t recognize that satellite measurements may have a problem with accuracy when it comes to such miniscule distinctions in measurements?

            Oh, I forgot. NASA has been doing that regularly in its claim of “hottest” year. Most recent candidate years differ from one another by a miniscule amount, involving hundredths of one degree whereas uncertainty error is greater than 1/10th of a degree, so meaningless.

          • ROO2

            You haven’t bothered to explain how satellite measurements of sea level deal with ongoing ocean swells which can reach dozens of feet above actual sea level.

            Yes, the wave heights can also be, and are, determined from the satellite data. The satellite is sampling with a pulse 1700 times per second, that considerable amount of data can be used to determine the average sea level.

            The would not have been sending successive multi-million dollar satellites deigned for that purpose into space would they? But wait you are susceptible to conspiracy ideation.

            NASA has been doing that regularly in its claim of “hottest” year. Most recent candidate years differ from one another by a miniscule amount, involving hundredths of one degree whereas uncertainty error is greater than 1/10th of a degree, so meaningless

            Good grief, it seems you do not understand basic math.

            You mean like:

            “2015 was approximately 0.1 degree C (about 0.2 degrees F) hotter than 2014, which had tied with 2005 and 2010 as the previous hottest years. 2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence.”

            http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf

          • Denis Ables

            Silly boy. Even NASA admited that our current el Nino (began in early 2015 was a NATURAl event.

            Even so, RSS data showed no addutuibak warming since the 1998 until November 2015.

            I repeat NASA has been talking about “hottest” year for several years now, and the difference before the current el Nino was a few hundredths of one degree betwixt various years. What part of that don’t you understand. Surely the NASA real scientists understand that. The folks on the PR helm are lip-synching the administration’s claims about “climate change”.

          • ROO2

            Even NASA admited that our current el Nino (began in early 2015 was a NATURAl event.

            So you expect there would be no trend in the ENSO Nino, neutral, or Nina years? You’d be completely wrong:

            https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/11/14/1447522940030/ebade968-c42b-4ee5-a0a4-340fca4abf9c-1020×695.png?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=97691f1b118a76a927d825e9bde8836c

            The fact that the latest El Nino was warmer than the last, was as a result of the underlying warming trend. The next cold Nina year has the possibility to be warmer that the massively hot 1998 Nino year, do you comprehend?

            But hey, the atmosphere is but a tiny eat sink compared to the land, ice, oceans. Let’s look at the whole picture in terms of energy gain:

            Your are arguing over whether the planet is warming or not based on the purple bit of he following graph:

            https://ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2003/FigBox3.1-1.jpg

            Do click on it and take a look, then evaluate what it is you seem to be claiming.

          • Denis Ables

            This is all distraction. The discussion started over NASA’s measurement of annual sea levelrate of rise versus tidal gauges.

            You provided only no information as to how NASA reconciles it’s readings, given the fact that there are no shortage of ongoing high ocean swells. These amount of many feet, and unraveling this data to come up with a couple of millimeter measurement is the question. The devil is in the details, no matter how many measurements are taken, and in this case it’s easy to recognize the likelihood of high error rates.

            There are quite a few studies now (following Svensmark’s original work) showing that sun activity level is likely the determinant of most global warming. We’re aprently moving into a low activity period which indicates cooling.

            All we can do is wait and see. It would not be prudent to spend trillions of dollars for what is likely a non-problem.

            The trend you show is the general warming which began, by definition, during the first low temperature during the LIA, so in the mid 1600s. That implies 200 years of natural warming, and probably another century of the same as co2 level grew from 280 to 400ppmv. before co2 level would have had any measurable impact on the global temperature.

            Our current warming, not unlike the MWP, may soon be replaced by another LIA (if we’re lucky and it’s not an actual ice age.)

          • ROO2

            This is all distraction.

            You brought it up. Now you do not like what it says, you gish gallop off somewhere else.

            the fact that there are no shortage of ongoing high ocean swells. These amount of many feet, and unraveling this data to come up with a couple of millimeter measurement is the question.

            Ah, I think I understand your conceptual problem. You see, on your flat Earth, the Sun and Moon above land would pull all water mass up to give an overall net water swell as your state.

            Here on planet Earth we have both highs and lows at the same time, measured over the surface by billions and billions of measurements that provide a very accurate average.

            The Sun activity has been declining since around the 1950s, but still the plant continues to warm.

            The Sun was only a very minor part of the LIA, that was volcanoes and ice albedo feedback. The solar constant is found to be remarkable constant, what a surprise.

            Our current warming, not unlike the MWP

            Our current warming is completely unlike the MWP. We have globally synchronous warming, unlike the MWP. The global temperatures are higher and the sea levels have risen far higher than during the MWP.

            The greenhouse gas concentrations are considerably higher than during the MWP, and the forcings of which are far greater than solar variation.

            That implies

            No. What you are implying is that for the small changes in solar forcing to have had such a dramatic change in the Earths climate the climate sensitivity must be extremely high.

            The effects of the CO2 we have added to date will have massive impacts in terms of global temperature and sea level rise. You are arguing to stop emitting fossil fuels forthwith.

            I get the impression you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

            Bless. 😉

          • Denis Ables

            “Here on earth we have both highs and lows at the same time….”
            Sorry, that isn’t convincing if you want to argue about 3.5 mm verus 1 to 2 mm. I suspect there’s more than enough poetic license in determining the “correct” figure. (Sort of what goes on when the feds revise raw temperature data based on their current “understanding” of local UHI effects, plus other peculiarities related to the particular temperature station.

            “The sun activity has been declining since around the 1950s….” Really?

            Sun activity very high in the most recent 5 cycles (1950s – 2000s) prior to cycle 24. The current cycle 24 is much lower than in the previous 3 cycles Zharkova, etal 2015.
            The modern grand Maximum (cycles 19-23 (1950-2009) was a “rare, or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration in the past three millennia.” Usoskin etal 2014

            “…globally synchronous warming, unlike the MWP…” Really?

            There are 6,000 boreholes which show the MWP trend was global. (See Joanne Nova website for a discussion). There are also more than a few MWP studies showing it was as warm, likely warmer than now. (co2science.org). Also the Alaskan Mendenhall glacier recently exposed shattered tree trunk(s) still upright in their original position which were dated 1,000 years old. Certainly trees no longer grow at that latitude anywhere near that site. A similar situation exists in the Alps, but that forest was dated 4,000 years old.

            “…for the small changes in solar forcing to have had such a dramatic change in the Earth’s climate, the sensitivity must be extremely high…”

            I’m just correcting what you said , by quoting others, but here your alarmist theory for which there is no evidence draws the usual conclusion. There’s no point in stopping emission of fossil fuels. The cost would be many trillions (according to the EPA) and the result would have little impact several decades from now (2/100 of one degree “drop” in temperature).

          • ROO2

            “Here on earth we have both highs and lows at the same time….”
            Sorry, that isn’t convincing

            Well until you develop interplanetary travel and come and visit planet Earth, you will not be able to see synchronous high and low tides on the planet at the same time.

            I suspect

            That you are a dimwitted idiot. Your conspiracy ideation would suggest as much.

            There are 6,000 boreholes which show the MWP trend was global.

            Wow, there are some deep boreholes. Link to the paper please.

            CO2science is fossil fuel funded crap. Do you have a reputable source?

            Also the Alaskan Mendenhall glacier… A similar situation exists in the Alps

            Yes, there is massive ongoing ice melt, but the planet is nowhere near equilibrium, and mankind is still adding to the imbalance at an increasing rate.

            There’s no point in stopping emission of fossil fuels. The cost would be many trillions (according to the EPA) and the result would have little impact several decades from now (2/100 of one degree “drop” in temperature).

            Wow, an actual drop in temperatures rather than the incessant increase of temperatures and sea level rise from continued fossil fuel use that will cost multi-trillions to accommodate?

            Sounds like a great plan. Why aren’t you signed up?

            All of the scientists, scientific institutes and global leaders are.

            Ah, you work for the fossil fuel industry! Now I get it.

          • Denis Ables

            Rather amusing. Alarmists invariably ask for “papers” or “reference” and then fall back into ad hominems, Ivariably. LOL. Sounds more like a real alarmist conspiracy. You can read all about it at Joanne Nova’s website, but I expect you to react accordingly to that link as wel.

            co2science.org keeps a list of MWP studies which are done by other folks in other organizations spread around the world. These are peer-reviewed papers (and usually not peer-reviewed by the drinking buddy at the next desk.

            LOL> You are an idiot. Keep in mind that 2/100 of a degree is not relative to now. It’s relative to whatever the temperature would be at that time.

            I’m long since retired and never worked for the fossil fuel industry. Sorry to pop your latest conspiracy theory.

            A massive ongoing ice melt? Hardly, but I’m hoping we continue to see at least some glaciers retreating and some ice melt. When that melt stops, stupid, we’re into our next ice age.

            Cheers

          • ROO2

            Alarmists invariably ask for “papers” or “reference”

            That’s called evidence, published in the scientific domain. It’s certainly not an unreasonable request.

            You can read all about it at Joanne Nova’s website

            That is not evidence in any sense. It’s blog site of pseudoscience that is in no way verified.

            Keep in mind that 2/100 of a degree is not relative to now. It’s relative to whatever the temperature would be at that time.

            Wut?

            I’m hoping we continue to see at least some glaciers retreating and some ice melt. When that melt stops, stupid, we’re into our next ice age.

            I’d not worry about that if I were you given that the carbon emissions man is making now will likely prevent glacial inception by at least 100,000 years. I’m guessing you will have popped your clogs well before that time, and the world will have moved forward without such laggards holding back progress.

          • Denis Ables

            “Papers” often offer little more than “indications”, or “correlations”, not necessarily “evidence”

            Joanne Nova’s spouse is Dr. David Evans, a climate modeler who worked for the Aussie government. It’s obvious you haven’t bothered to look at the peer-reviewed borehole studies presented at Nova’s site. Those are all identified and show the global trend of the MWP, but since this fact flies in the face of your mindset, you will undoubtedly not accept that information. You’re not sufficiently qualified, from what you’ve posted so far, to be able to differentiate between “pseudoscience” and “science”.

            You’re not worrying about the next ice age. Probably the best position, because the average duration of the more recent intervening interglacials has been 10,000 years and can easily vary by several thousand years. (On the other hand, the la Nina is seriously cranking up, which shows how quickly the 2015/16 el Nino (a natural event) ended. It was obviously a temporary event, (just as the prior 1997/98 el Nino, so obviously powered by sources other than co2. Co2 sensitivity is trivial compared to this.

            Fortunately, the new administration tendency appears to be leaning towards reducing or removing the funding supporting this “climate change” hoax.

          • ROO2

            Dr. David Evans, a climate modeler

            He’s no such thing. He was involved in the development of a carbon accounting model. That is certainly not the same thing.

            It’s obvious you haven’t bothered to look at the peer-reviewed borehole studies presented at Nova’s site.

            No point really, I had asked you for a link which you could not provide, but pages 2k is the most comprehensive assessment to date:

            http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PAGES2k_MBH991.png

            No MWP, no LIA, large hockeystick.

            You’re not worrying about the next ice age. Probably the best position, because

            “moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years.”

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7585/full/nature16494.html

            It was obviously a temporary event

            Alas:

            https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/11/14/1447522940030/ebade968-c42b-4ee5-a0a4-340fca4abf9c-1020×695.png?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=97691f1b118a76a927d825e9bde8836c

            Co2 sensitivity is trivial compared to this…this “climate change” hoax

            Self contradictory gibberish. Not a nice look. 😉

          • Anaussieinswitzerland

            Denis is such a punchbag.

            I love it when the trolls start introducing the Aussie angle as if nobody reading has ever been there or is able to check their claims……

            “So, as far as I can tell, David Evans’s startling discovery is simply him being confused about how climate models actually work.”
            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/not-even-partially-correct/

          • ROO2

            I bet their (Jo and Davids) household is a hotbed of conspiracy ideation. It would make a great fly on the wall documentary series, and Denis would lap that up. It’d be like a live Info Wars coupled with Big Brother. I think it has legs, let me give Murdoch a call…

          • Denis Ables

            The boreholes show conclusively that the MWP was global, and the climate “scientists” have long since been quoted as needing to get rid of the MWP., and here you are, continuing to deny that there is no evidence, instead showing the usual bogus hockey stick graph. Mann’s hockey stick graph is generated by his process, even when the input data are random. This guy also used Bristlecone PInes (notably inaccurate, since any proxy data is greatly influenced by non-temperature events, such as one healthy bear taking a crap under that tree).

            You’ll have to live with your lie, I’m afraid, because time is passing, and we’ll all be looking at the actual outcome, won’t we?

            In the meantime, the computer models, despite numerous “tweaks”, still show a widening discrepancy with actual temperature data, but I have to admit that both NASA and NOAA are now no doubt busily “revising” the actual temperature data so it fits better with their model. NOAA has recently re-introduced shipboard SST data, which had an obvious temp bias and was supposedly replaced by 3,000+ ARGO sinking buoys specifically designed for environmental measurements. This re-introduction of bogus SST data permitted our “science” agencies to declare that there was no temperature “hiatus”. Of course, that admission has long since found its way into the public arena.

            While the IPCC has recognized some of the reduced rate of temperature increase, they’ve evidently overlooked reflection of that fact in their outyear temperatures. An entire bureaucracy reviews that report before publishing, but that entire group “happened” to overlook the outyear resultant temperature. Wishful thinking, eh?

            This whole piece belongs in the next edition of “The Madness of Crowds….”

          • ROO2

            The boreholes show conclusively that the MWP was global

            So you keep saying, but when asked for a reference to support this it never materialises. It would be irrelevant in the anyway, as boreholes are only one of many proxies, and the scientific position, as shown by pages 2k, is that the MWP and LIA were not globally synchronous events.

            the climate “scientists” have long since been quoted as needing to get rid of the MWP

            Why? If there really was a massive global deviation in temperature that was not explained by orbital forcing or the solar constant not being constant, then that would suggest that climate sensitivity was really high for it to have occurred. Given that your conspiracy is based on scientists secretly making things up [because you understand nothing of the content] then why would you hide such a revelation which would constrain climate sensitivity to the high end of the scale necessitating far greater and more urgent action?

            That’s the problem with conspiracy theories made up by dimwits, the unravel with even the slightest application of logical thinking.

            instead showing the usual bogus hockey stick graph.

            That would be the same hockey stick shown in the borehole data.

            Mann’s hockey stick graph is generated by his process, even when the input data are random.

            All his papers still stand, and the conclusions too. M&M have been debunked time and again. This is really old news, where have you been? Have you not ventured to read any science in the last decade?

            since any proxy data is greatly influenced by non-temperature events, such as one healthy bear taking a crap under that tree

            Oh please say you have a source for this…was it on LOLWUWT? Link please.

            In the meantime, the computer models, despite numerous “tweaks”, still show a widening discrepancy with actual temperature data, but I have to admit that both NASA and NOAA are now no doubt busily “revising” the actual temperature data so it fits better with their model.

            Are you sure?

            https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/rcp85_loti_1yr.jpeg

            But NASA and NOAA data say the same thing as the British and Japanese, and Koch funded BEST data. Your conspiracy is so far reaching, global in fact, and based on freely available raw data one wonders why somebody has not published a paper pointing out their alleged errors?

            Oh, don’t tell me. All of the scientific publishers are also in on the act along with the worlds science journalists.

            B’jesus. I’d get down in your bunker right now with your firearm arsenal because they will already have been reading what you have written on the internet and will be coming for you.

            NOAA has recently re-introduced shipboard SST data

            Derp, they always contained that data. Can you hear the sound of chopper blades yet?

            This re-introduction of bogus SST data permitted our “science” agencies to declare that there was no temperature “hiatus”.

            Try reading some science, you are flailing.

            While the IPCC has recognized some of the reduced rate of temperature increase, they’ve evidently overlooked reflection of that fact in their outyear temperatures.

            No, they have not. You are talking about surface air temperatures. Let the IPCC set out for you these in the context of all other warming experienced by the planet:

            https://ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2003/FigBox3.1-1.jpg

            Do click on the link for the graphic.

            You are arguing about the rate of change of the purple part of the chart, and on that basis you are claiming that it has not warmed as much as projected.

            It’s time you looked at the whole picture.

          • Robert

            What a surprise….. /s

            “…but when asked for a reference to support this it never materialises.”

          • ROO2

            Well there is the HPS papers: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/15/a-late-quaternary-climate-reco/

            But I’m guessing that it is not these for obvious reasons.

          • Denis Ables

            The borehole reference is provided, but you’ve already admitted you don’t need to see it, although you evidently weren’t even familiar with the results. The readers can decide for themselves.

            http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

            “one of many proxies…..” Hardly. These are samples taken around the globe, and not confined to ice cores. The trend is obvious, and further validated by the Mendenhall glacier which recently exposed shattered tree trunks still standing in their original positon, and dated…. 1,000 years ago. No trees have been growing at that latitude anywhere near those sites, and Alaska is a considerable distance from Europe.

            “That would be the same hockey stick graph shown in the borehole data….” Sorry, the hockey stick is unique to Mann’s “analysis”. Your prattle is making no sense. Solar activity is consistent with the MWP warming. Co2 “sensitivity” variation is not a consideration during the MWP. Co2 level has been constant for many centuries before the MWP and remained so until the 1800s. Temperature clearly was higher during the earlier warming durations before the MWP, with no co2 variation.

            The only reason alarmist so vigorously DENY the MWP was global and warmer is because they have no answer to an embarrassing question: If the MWP was as warm as now (or warmer) and global, that warming had to be due to natural climate variation. But that implies our current warming (such as it is) is not unusual , so alarmists better come up with something better than “no other explanation for this warming (which hardly qualified as evidence in any event.

            Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” is a major distraction. It’s so ridiculous to even discuss that folks forget the real issue, namely that alarmists have no evidence that co2 has EVER had any impact on our planet’s temperature. The only correlation tracking both up and down trends over geologic periods shows temperature happening first, followed hundreds of years (or more) later by similar variation in co2 level. While this correlation is not sufficient to imply that temperature drives co2 level, it is sufficient to eliminate the possibility of the existence of the opposite correlation. Not one alarmist has been able to back up their positon by stating, in their own words, the evidence supporting their belief. They cannot do anything but point to websites or other references.

            The BEST project came to conclusions which were not shared by the only climatologist participating in that study (Curry). You’re brushing off Evans because you don’t think he was a modeler. Your definition of modeler is one of your own making. What’s that worth?

            That shipboard SST data was added back into their analysis in 2015. It had a .12C temperature bias, as I recall. Total LIE. Is somebody paying you to embarrass yourself? (oops, I forgot, you’re using a “user name”.

            So, now you’re talking about ocean temperature and comparing that to satellite data? LOL. The computer model temperature projections involve surface air, you imbecile.

            You alarmists have no end of ways to obfuscate. It’s really a waste of time to deal with such ignorance and rapid beliefs.

          • ROO2

            The trend is obvious

            It sure is, it’s what is called a hockey stick:

            http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/62610/403756a0.pdf?sequence=1&bcsi_scan_E956BCBE8ADBC89F=/Y/VMEOg7cUwaNrKkhQsAnqxb/DcAAAAVAybOA==&bcsi_scan_filename=403756a0.pdf

            further validated by the Mendenhall glacier which recently exposed shattered tree trunks still standing in their original positon, and dated…. 1,000 years ago.

            Ah, so at the start of the Medieval Warm Period this glacier grew in size to cover existing forest? Does not sound very warm to anyone with half a brain. That forest has remained covered with ice throughout the rest of the MWP only to be uncovered today by the considerable ongoing rates of melting.

            , the hockey stick is unique to Mann’s “analysis”.

            Except for the hockey stick published by the scientists that you cited. Oh, then there is all the other studies that have arrived at the same conclusion:

            http://environmentalforest.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html

            Oooops. Seems you are not very well read on the subject. I’m stunned.

            co2 has EVER had any impact on our planet’s temperature

            That is just lunatic talk. You are clearly unhinged, go and seek help.

          • ROO2

            the result would have little impact several decades from now

            It won’t, but out of interest why are you so insistent about arguing what the human race does after you are dead?

          • ROO2

            Yes 3.4mm per year is quite a bit more than the 1.48mm the tidal gauges show.

            The tide gauges show the same sea level rise:

            “Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 +/- 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010”

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/full/nature14093.html

            Must be a giant mountain of water out their in the middle of the oceans?

            Yes, there is, we know this already.

            http://www.csr.utexas.edu/ocean/egs04.html

            Or maybe the satellites are wrong, given their radar is only 2cm to 4cm in bandwidth

            Alas, as the number of samples goes to infinity, then the uncertainty in the average falls to zero [disregarding biases] and a single satellites take a hell of a lot of measurements.

            At present there is Jason-2, Jason-3 and Sentinel-3 all measuring sea level.

            and their exactly location in space isn’t precisely known

            Handwaving.

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234115902_Absolute_calibration_of_Jason_satellite_radar_altimeters_at_Gavdos_CalVal_facility_using_independent_techniques

            In any event. I live in the real world, not the “adjusted” world.

            Sure, you live in your flat Earth reality where gravity is constant throughout the flat plane. Where reducing sea levels reflect true sea level change even though they are an artifact from glacial isostatic rebound from the melting massive glaciers from the last ice age and the land is still rising as a result. Where you can roam freely with pixies, fairies and unicorns.

            It sounds lovely.

          • david russell

            So yer saying there really is a giant mountain of water building in the middle of the oceans. Wow. I’m really impressed with myself for guessing that.

            Well, the for sure we don’t have a thing to worry about, because we don’t live in the middle of the oceans, but rather at the coasts were sea levels are rising at the same rate for 100 years … 6″ per century on average.

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/04/11/broken-altimetry-225-tide-gauges-show-sea-level-rising-only-1-48-mm-per-year-less-than-half-the-satellite-claimed-rate/#sthash.2CMk1rRo.dpbs

          • Robert

            The Scablands in Washington state ….. and more recently:

            “Since 1985, over 30 debris flows have occurred in the Tahoma Creek valley. Glacial outburst floods from the South Tahoma Glacier during hot, dry weather caused most of the debris flows, but heavy rainstorms in the fall caused several others.”
            https://www.nps.gov/mora/learn/news/westside-road-outburst-flood.htm

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            Russell gives himself away. He says “No recent acceleration “. If you are speaking of a 30 day time period that would be true.

          • ROO2

            He seems to be using a century average to claim that the century average sea level rise is constant.

            He is a Derp.

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            He also mentions 225 gauges. Since are more than that worldwide is he choosing which ones? And does he account for changes in ocean currents and barometric pressure?

          • david russell

            You are lying, shamelessly. Thus you are also a creep. Buzz off.

          • evenminded

            You’re the one that lied about global temperature data, not me.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            Deranged. Liar. Creep. Bore.

            Confirmed.

          • evenminded

            Again, you’re the one that lied about global temperature data, not me.

            You’re an idiot.

          • BBQman

            Evenminded, you are behaving like an adolescent, please get back on topic.

          • evenminded

            I am on topic moron.

            You’re an idiot.

          • BBQman

            Once again your ugly childish insults have surfaced like primordial slime from a dark putrid pit, retreat back to your cave and await answers from your shadows anvil head.

          • evenminded

            You’re scientifically illiterate.

            Why would anyone care what you think?

          • BBQman

            That is why I understand our climate drivers are and their sequential order and you can’t write out a simple paper to back up your ridiculous claim that CO2 is a primary climate driver, we are done, you will not be advanced to the next dimension now, but I did try to help you after all, I can’t make to comprehend information, sorry, I did not mean to trigger you!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dbf15332c36f74f11782f00f01c5dfd6fe4a77b57c9770b9b6599c3cfdfc5506.gif

          • evenminded

            You’re scientifically illiterate.

            Why would anyone care what you think?

          • Mac

            Hey BBQman, I see you’ve encountered feebleminded.
            The Don Rickles of the climate change cultists.

          • BBQman

            So you and demented- minded have dialogued before, do you know her backstory, I think she has issues of some sort.

          • RealOldOne2

            The tiltminded one and ROO2, my serial impersonator, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3011348524 , are a matched pair and both of them act like that unhinged gal in BBQ’s vid.

            They have no interest in discussing science like adults, as they just dismiss and deny science that shows they are wrong, like my heat transfer science that exposes why their claim that colder objects transfer energy/heat to warmer objects is false which I showed the name caller here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/09/dear-president-elect-trump-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax/#comment-3013994457 .

          • david russell

            The evidence is public and shows the liar is you. You’ve been outed. Man up.

          • evenminded

            The evidence shows that you are a moron that cannot admit his error.

            What does the RSS data for the globally averaged TLT show for the drop in temperature for 2016?

            Don’t lie now.

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            So let me give you an English lesson:

            From Wikipedia on “to lie”:
            A lie is a statement that the stating party believes to be false and that is made with the intention to deceive.

            Now that I’ve corrected your misunderstanding, I await your apology

          • evenminded

            If you don’t realize that your statement is false right now then you are a simpleton.

            So which is it David, are you a liar or a simpleton?

            What does the RSS data for the globally averaged TLT show for the drop in temperature over 2016?

            You’re an idiot.

          • david russell

            This is just silly. Buzz off.

          • evenminded

            Yes, your dishonesty is silly.

            What does the RSS data for the globally averaged TLT show for the drop in temperature over 2016?

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2016

          • Bart_R

            You’re both wrong.

            Though evenminded is wrong in the sense that it’s wrong to call tomato a vegetable, you’re wrong in the sense that it’s wrong to call a tomato a suspension bridge.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/last:12

            Your graph compares 2015.6 to 2016.8, the height of summer to mid-fall, with rounding as WoodForTrees does it.

            Do temperatures seasonally fall from summer to fall? There’s a clue in the name of the season.

            Also, RSS as WoodForTrees reports has been deprecated by the RSS organization; it’s the previous RSS product, which RSS has found to be low by 60%. RSS is working through the peer-review process.

            Your claims from the graph you use are either deliberately dishonest or rank incompetence.

            Though evenminded overlooks these two issues, he does make the valid point that land-only is more susceptible to variability and does not well reflect the state of global temperature.

            And really, what’s the point of your claim?

            That weather is changing.

            Weather isn’t climate.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.083/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.166/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.25/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.333/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.416/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.583/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.666/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.75/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4

            Your fossil waste discharges are changing the climate of the globe, are changing the pH of the world, are reducing the food value of crops, are decreasing the fertility of soils, and consume the scarce power of weathering to restore fossil CO2 to mineral form.

            You take this scarcity without consent and without compensating the owners of the property that delivers weathering. While many do this, it is hardly done equitably.

            That makes you a deadbeat and a thief. That makes anyone who isn’t pressing to collect Market weathering rents anti-capitalist.

            Pay what you owe. Collect what you’re owed.

          • david russell

            I don’t need more doofus advice from the Bart, the Baron of Bubbles.

          • Bart_R

            Ad hominem doesn’t make a tomato a suspension bridge.

            Comparing summer to fall temperatures? That’s the stuff of either rank incompetence or deliberate malice.

            Cherry picking land-only? Moreso.

            These choices, these claims of yours, are on their face the result of being persuaded by consequences to argue against fact because the consequences of admitting harms are done by your fossil waste dumping are unpleasant to you.

            Pander to your own weaknesses of character on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Bart, I just don’t care what you have to say. You’re a goof-ball.

          • Bart_R

            I don’t care what you have to say, either.

            But when you lie to the public, because I care about them, it’s my pleasure to point out your lies, and does them a good turn.

            It would be better were you not to lie, but I simply don’t care.

            Work out your issues with integrity and honesty on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            I read your first sentence. So be gone.

          • Bart_R

            This reply is not for you. No one expects you to be persuaded by fact or logic.

            Your fossil waste discharges are changing the climate of the globe some fifteen to 200 times faster than natural rates (comparable to a Predator drone in a school zone), are significantly changing the pH of the world, are greatly reducing some food value of crops, are decreasing the native fertility of soils, and consume the scarce power of weathering to restore fossil CO2 to mineral form.

            We know these facts to be true because we have observations carefully measured by scientists for centuries, amounting to more evidence than we have for practically any other conclusion of modern science, from Einstein’s General Relativity to the Higgs Boson or gravity waves or extrasolar planets and on and on. The details are broadly available with a Google Scholar search on the appropriate terms, but one particularly clear-speaking scientist on these subjects is Katherine Hayhoe, who accurately sums up the exact fit of inference to observation we have, if peer-reviewed published papers are out of your reach.

            Your errors are typically logical fallacies, outright lies, myths, spin of the truth, and go on ad nauseum without admission when you are caught out, without correction when you are shown to be wrong, with backsliding after you’ve been cornered by facts and reasoning, in what must be seen as behavior inspired by fear of the consequences of the facts. Arguing from consequences is your error. We’re not going to change that. Once a coward, always a coward.

            You steal this scarcity without consent and without compensating the owners of the property that delivers weathering. While many do this, it is hardly done equitably.

            That makes you a deadbeat and a thief. That makes anyone who isn’t pressing to collect Market weathering rents anti-capitalist.

            Pay what you owe. Collect what you’re owed.

          • david russell

            Correct: Your post above is for idiots like yourself.

            We’re in a 2 decade pause in temperatures despite dumping 1/3 of all fossil fuel emissions ever during that same period.

            The climate of the globe is the best it’s ever been in the past 60 years.

            Crop yields are a all time highs and even with 7B people (7x the number 200 years ago) we produce 2 times the calories to feed every human alive today.

            Ironically high CO2 environments allow plants to thrive with less water and in less fertile soils.

            If scientists carefully measure the amount of carbonic acid due to human CO2 emissions that get inot the oceans, they would discover that the annual amount is about 1 molecule of carbonic acid per 107,000,000,000 parts sea-water (1 to 107B).

            Poor farm practices and conversion of land for human use are not an artifact of CO2 emissions, but rather of the tremendous leap in human prosperity (largely due to the use of fossil fuels). Industrial, agricultural and human waste dumping into the oceans is the real problem and again, the produce of human prosperity….. more so prospectively in the less developed countries who don’t have developed country environmental laws.

            The remainder of your post drifts off into gibberish, to which I say, “What do you expect from a doofus?”

          • Bart_R

            Ad hominem snarl, still?

            This response is to correct the errors you spew. Don’t feel obliged to read it before you kneejerk.

            Continued uninterrupted global warming is seen every major climate record, satellite and surface. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978.9/plot/rss/offset:0.431514/plot/uah6/offset:0.431514/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:0.14252

            This mythic pause you claim doesn’t exist.

            You’ve been informed of this, yet still you lie. There is no pause.

            The correlation of CO2 level to climate temperature continues.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/10c79f179ddaec54f66490e2d2ef699fde5c81fdc5da694665572b5e9233e64c.png

            We can see this pattern continue from direct observations.

            You’ve been shown this, yet still you lie. CO2 rise is a first order cause of global temperature rise on climate timescales.

            We know the climate is not ‘best’ for everyone: insurance reports show that damage and losses from extreme weather far outpace population growth, and the world has some 60 million refugees, an unprecedented number, many of whom can trace their status to climate-related issues. Saying something is ‘best’ is subjective. Your claims do not hold water. You lie.

            Raising CO2 levels causes plants to need more nitrates and phosphates, so they deplete soils faster than nature replenishes. Our crop yields are actually going down compared to the cost of fertilizer and irrigation, not up, while crop losses due extreme weather are increasing. You lie.

            pH is dropping rapidly across the globe, and the -OH ion count has shifted over 34%. Irrational comparisons of molecule counts are meaningless. You lie.

            Fossil fuel is not necessary for farming; more than enough farm wastes are generated that farm equipment could run on biodiesel from pyrolysis of biomass easily, and far more cheaply than from fossil; EVs for farms are far cheaper per mile than fossil, too, and electricity from renewables is also cheaper. You flog the most expensive and harmful option while ignoring the obvious cure. You lie.

            You’re a lying liar, exposed.

            And that won’t stop you. Nothing can stop an avowed liar from lying.

            Careen along the web of lies you spin on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Snarl? Sounds compelling. It was merely an introduction to a refutation of your entire previous post.

            It’s warm. It was warm 20 years ago. We’ve had a warm climate for many years. You think the planet was on fire the way you talk. But absent modern instrumentation humans would have no idea that we’ve had on average .8C of warming over the last 150 years.

            Moreover warm is good, especially for humans. All other warm periods were good for humanity.

            And in the current period extreme weather is either declining (like tornados and hurricanes) or showing no long term trend at all (like world-wide acreage under drought).

            Warm climates with more CO2 is good for agriculture, forestry. Plants grow faster, use less water, can thrive in less fertile soils.

            Look where humanity is concentrated — where it’s hot. No one lives at the poles (well, almost no one). Certainly people retire to Florida and not North Dakota.

            What we have is warm, pleasant, safe weather. The planet is literally greener today than it was say in the 1950’s. What’s not to like?

            I don’t see how you can call today’s climate “a change over 20 or 30 years’ ago, but if you insist on doing so then you must admit that the climate is actually BETTER now than then.

            Our climate really hasn’t changed in the past 100 years. Overall it has gotten warmer, but in cycles which DO NOT track CO2 very well. Temperatures went up .45C from 1910 to 1940 with CO2 levels barely budging. And CO2 levels went up dramatically from the 1940’s to the mid-1970’s, but temperatures actually dropped.

            As long as people insist on building on flood plains and in tornado tracks and building more expensively, well we’ll continue to suffer more property damage. This has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with people (the most prosperous people typically) wanting to live near water and putting up more and more expensive housing there.

            The pH of the oceans is dropping for sure. But as the math and chemistry of human CO2 emissions > oceanic carbonic acid are such that it only amounts to 1 molecule per year of carbonic acid to 107 Billion parts seawater, I just can’t believe humans play a material role.

            Farmers are under no constraint to us petro chemical fertilizers or pesticides. They can do what they wish. Many of them seem to scorn your advice.

            That’s about all in rebuttal (again) to your dogma.

          • Bart_R

            To sum up your argument: if we were more ignorant, we’d be more ignorant, and you’d be happier.

            You so value the bliss of ignorance that you ignore the vast suffering it takes no particular instrumentation to gauge, as refugees run into barbed wire by the tens of millions, and that makes you happy.

            Caught on the facts, you resort to a miasma of opinion and dogma, because no matter what the facts are, you never really valued them above your own opinion and feelings, and never will

            So you lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, doing lasting harm on a global scale because it feels good to you.

            Chlorinated water absorbs double the heavy metals as CO2 levels increase linearly, so incidents like the lead poisoning in Flint Michigan and scores of other communities are at your feet, for your fossil waste dumping that alters chloride chemistry through carbonic acid.

            And you wonder why my responses aren’t directed to you?

            Why would anyone want anything to do with someone of your bent, at all?

            You aren’t rebutting. You’re just kneejerking.

            Kneejerk on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Your summary of my argument makes it true by definition and there you MUST agree with it.

            Such reveals what a doofus you are.

            But of course that’s not my position.

            You speak of suffering (for the very first time to my knowledge). WTF are you talking about? For sure humans are suffering more or less for many and sundry reasons pretty much from the beginning of history. SO WHAT?

            At this point you devolve in slobbering gibberish. “Barbed wire?” Give me a break. Geez. “Chlorinated water?” Huh? Are you proposing a ban on swimming pools or what? Geez.

            I feel your passion, but you are a complete lunatic.

          • Bart_R

            The more you write, the more how much is wrong with you becomes clear.

            If you don’t understand what someone has written; ask.

            Or at least try to READ HARDER.

          • david russell

            This a quote from your link:

            GPS satellites, orbiting about the center of gravity of the Earth, can only measure heights relative to a geocentric reference ellipsoid. To obtain one’s geoidal height, a raw GPS reading must be corrected. Conversely, height determined by spirit leveling from a tidal measurement station, as in traditional land surveying, will always be geoidal height.

            ———-

            Therefore your link describes a problem for satellites, but no tidal gauges, just as I said.

          • Bart_R

            Wake up!

            You appear to be confusing me with someone else.

            Also, I can’t really tell — not being part of the discussion and not knowing what you’re replying to — but your reasoning appears to be deeply flawed cherry-picking and your conclusion wrongly based on bad-faith reading.

          • david russell

            Well, you can use the education as well. I’ll repost it to ROO2.

            And of course you are off-base. The point of my quote is that the satellites have no way to adjust for gravitational anomalies, which makes their values for sea level rise suspect. Au contraire with the tidal gauges who have NO NEED to make such adjustments.

          • Bart_R

            Tidal gauges have no way to adjust for local land subsidence or rise, which can be the result of multiple different processes; while satellites have many issues — part of why they’ve been particularly poor at tracking global temperatures over time scales longer than a few months — rejecting satellite observations entirely is clearly a mistake.

            In any event, you’re in a moot discussion if you think past sea level change will adequately inform future sea level change. While thermal expansion of sea water is likely fairly linear globally, thermal expansion of ice results in pulses of sea level rise, and melting of ice is intermittently moderated by ice dams; when incipient sea level rise does come, it will come in sharp rush on the scale of meters a month every few decades, not some gradual linear event.

            Cumulatively, changes in Nature tend to a sigmoid shape, and sea level is no exception. The evidence of iceberg raft debris in sediments not only confirms sudden sea level rise dominates during period of temperature rise, but also that the flat starts and plateaus of rising trends do not give any information about the timing or slope of the steep spike phases.

            Your concern for the education of others is noted, for its irony.

            “Au contraire” — you’re using it wrong.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Only academics care about “adjustments to tidal gauges” for land subsidence or rise. Indeed we coastal land dwellers want VERY MUCH to know the sea rise at the coasts where we live INCLUDING any subsidence or rise.

            I’ve provided many reasons to reject satellite estimates of sea rise, but the most important is that satellites attempt to measure the wrong metric. Tidal gauges measure the only relevant metric for risk assessment to life and property.

            The rest of your post has nothing to do with which metric (satellite or tidal gauge) is appropriate, but rather is a speculation on what the future may bring.

            To date, the future has brought us 6″ per century of sea level rise at the coast with no recent acceleration. From a sea level measurement perspective that means “NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.”

            You may or may not have good arguments for future sea level rise, but so far, so good.

          • Bart_R

            “We coastal land dwellers?”

            Lubber. Your reasoning from consequences is simply fantasy. You reject correction, yet snarl about education. For all your shouting, you reject the evidence that conflicts with your feelings, putting how you feel ahead of thought and knowledge.

            The more you write, the more how very much is wrong with you becomes clear.

            Overheard by a man on the Empire State Building’s 10th floor, “Sooo farrrr soooo gooooood,” shouted by a man who jumped from the roof.

          • david russell

            So many words above
            …..so little content. Buzz off.

          • Bart_R

            Lubber pretends he knows the sea.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            “…pretends to know the sea’??!!!

            What are you blathering about?

          • Bart_R

            Hey, I didn’t introduce the topic of the supposed expertise granted by merely moving to somewhere with a sea view.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            No better. Your above is gibberish still.

          • Bart_R

            And on and on you go, replying pointlessly, yet still a deadbeat.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            “Au contraire” means “just the opposite.” I believe I used it correctly.

          • Bart_R

            Your usage of the idiom is most certainly ham-handed, whatever you believe.

            But I’m sure you’re more expert in French usage than native speakers. In your own mind. After all, your Dunning-Kruger faith in your own expertise on every topic appears to share that unshakable self-confidence of the uninformed.

          • david russell

            Another contentless post. Why bother? If you have nothing relevant to say, say nothing.

          • Bart_R

            Just illustrating yet again, you are completely competent where you are completely ignorant.

            And you’re so very confident about so very much.

            Real experts are self-questioning and express some self-doubt, understanding the limitations of their knowledge and looking forward to learning more.

            You should try to learn some French. Or anything.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            That’s 4 goofy and vacuous posts in a row. Annoy someone else.

          • Bart_R

            So, you’re saying you’re not competent at all?

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            No. I’m saying your last 4 (not 5) comments have been vacuous drivel.

          • Bart_R

            Which you say about just about everything said by anyone not you.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Correction: That’s what I say about you. Some people are wrong. Some people agree with me. Some people actually contribute new stuff. Some people identify mistakes I make.

          • Bart_R

            Back to the topic.

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

            Arctic sea ice shattering record lows.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.083/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.166/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.25/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.333/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.416/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.583/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.666/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.75/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.916/every:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.4

            Global warming trend continuing to keep pace with CO2 level in an unbroken pattern as far back as there are instrumental records.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/10c79f179ddaec54f66490e2d2ef699fde5c81fdc5da694665572b5e9233e64c.png

            And the pattern also works when matching instrumental temperatures to paleoclimate CO2 reconstructions, too.

            pH records? The same.

            Plant nutrient density loss records? The same.

            Soil fertility drop records? The same.

            50 essential climate variables? The same.

            It’s long past time the people responsible for these harms paid for their willful negligence and the damages they’ve done.

          • david russell

            What a lot of nothing.

            The Artic is losing sea ice. Boo hoo.
            The Antarctic is not, and is gaining land ice.

            Sea levels are net unaffected by any of this, rising at 6″ per 100 years, just like they’ve been doing for 100 years. BFD.

            Your chart seems to be sea ice vs CO2. WTF? Who cares?

            Global temperatures have been flat for almost 2 decades according to satellites and we’ve dumped 1/3 of a fossil fuel emissions during that same period. Temperatures rose 1910-1940 when CO2 levels barely budget —— .45C. Temperatures cooled after WWI until the mid-1970s despite rising CO2. So 70 out of the last 100 years, CO2 and temperature went the wrong way that the theory would suggest. WTF?

            CO2 levels in the paleo era rose AFTER the temperature rose… hundreds of years later. I’d keep quiet about the paleo record. It makes it seem like temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around.

          • Bart_R

            Arctic is losing ice.

            Greenland is losing ice.

            87%-97% of mountain glaciers are losing ice worldwide, and the remaining 3%-13% are mostly stable shifting from growth to loss, and any growth in the rest attributable to shifting precipitation due climate change forced by CO2.

            Overall the world is losing ice.

            The Antarctic? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

            Is at an all time low for sea ice on this date, and has been for months, despite thermal expansion of land ice pushing a record amount of ice off the Antarctic continent.

            Sea level is not much affected by sea ice melt, but then you choose to focus on the irrelevant when the relevant is presented to you: it’s hot enough to melt ice even at the poles, even in November in the Arctic.

            And you keep telling the same freaking ‘flat’ lie after being shown it to be false repeatedly. After being shown satellites are unreliable, repeatedly. After being shown even unreliable satellites show nothing ‘flat’, repeatedly. You can’t compare 1910-1940 by satellite, because there were no satellites before 1940, were there?

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.083/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.166/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.25/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.333/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.416/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.583/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.666/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.75/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1880.916/every:12/plot/gistemp/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1956/to:1986/trend

            When you compare like to like, you see 1910-1940 far less rapidly warming than any 30-year period in the last six decades.

            Is there natural variability? Absolutely there is, but it’s so weak that anything longer than five years, up to 17 years, natural variability only dominates one time in twenty against the rising global trend, and for 30 year trends there hasn’t been anything but a rising trend for the last sixty years. Natural variability, all the joint powers of the sun and seas and space and dust and volcano is practically wiped out; the Milankovitch orbital forcings have been wiped off the map. The Hale cycles have been wiped off the map.

            Your claims are lies, mistakes, myths.

            Past sea level changes for the last century have reversed from a general falling trend of 1″ per 100 years to 7″ in the last 100 years. That 8″ net change is due mostly to thermal expansion so far. The great ice dams of Greenland and the Antarctic have yet to burst. When they do, there will be rises between one and four meters over a matter of weeks or months. The past century does not represent the next millennium.

            CO2 rises as a feedback of temperature increase. Water vapor in atmosphere rises as a feedback of temperature increase. There are multiple scholarly studies confirming this, available easily for review, yet you dodge those and go instead to pseudoscience and misinformation. And so 90% of temperature rise follows CO2 rise, while 10% of CO2 rise follows independent temperature rise, as predicted by the GHE. Which comes first is chickens and eggs.

            You lie, and lie, and lie, and behave as if you have the right to determine these conclusions for the whole world and demand we have to obey your worldview. By what right? Who elected you? The world stands 191 nations against you. Who did you pay? You never paid. Who gave you permit? You hold no permit for the fossil waste dumping you do on us all and what is ours.

            Disgusting deceiving deadbeat, pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Maybe Greenland is losing ice. Maybe not, according to it’s owner, Denmark:

            http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/31/danish-meteorological-institute-data-show-greenland-ice-mass-balance-has-grown-impressively-since-2014/#sthash.udd2YDAI.85lF6qpq.dpbs

            Anyway, who cares, as the coastal sea levels seem unaffected and continue to rise at the same rate they have for over 100 years…. 6″ per century.

          • Bart_R

            I stopped clicking on links to notrickszone years ago, as, let’s face it, it’s the intellectual equivalent of being Rick-Rolled. There’s no substance and only propaganda, lie and slime there. Might as well offer a link to WUWT or an Idsos site.

            If you think lackeys Bannon and Ebell will last the season, you need to watch a few episodes of The Apprentice, to understand how Trump operates. He uses people up, and keeps his enemies close. Or have you learned nothing from the example of lackey puppet Chris Christie?

          • david russell

            Enjoy your ignorance. Good luck with your optimism about Trump, Bannon, and Ebell. Bwahahaha.

          • Bart_R

            Why such a Debbie Downer, deadbeat?

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            I’m not downbeat. In fact I’m elated. The US will continue on at the top of the e onomic heap, while others will waste $T’s in a feckless attempt to control the weather.

          • Bart_R

            Did you mean ‘egonomic heap’? You left out a letter there. Or maybe you meant onomic heap e?

            Fossil waste dumping is its own punishment. America’s loss of leadership in technology by sticking to 1900’s coal when the world is improving solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and hydroelectric by 20% with every doubling of deployed capacity will simply leave America in the past, buried by its own dust, quite literally.

            And then who will America have to blame?

            Well, you.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Economic. Fixed.

            These renewables make about 3% of the world’s energy. Fossil fuels, about 85%.

            Renewables are cute but not yet ready for prime time.

          • Bart_R

            Your claims are noted.

            As in the past we see spin, fallacy and outright lie are the foundations of your consequence-inspired claims.

            Canada, a modern nation most immediately comparable to the USA, has always generated enough of its energy without fossil to fully meet domestic grid needs. The amount generated by fossil in Canada has always been less than the amount of exported electric power. The Canadian government has committed to put an end to thermal coal in Canada by 2030.

            Fossil is falling as a proportion “of the world’s energy.” California and Texas, and over half of the other US states, now generate a significant amount of energy from new and rapidly expanding renewables, pushing fossil prices down because renewables are so much cheaper than fossil.

            EVs run off grid power cost an average of 16% as much per mile for energy compared to fossil. Walmart is committed to an EV fleet for its shipping. When the highest-mileage one sixth of vehicles on the road are EV — a trend expected in the auto industry by the mid 2020’s — total demand for gasoline and diesel will drop to 1950’s levels, which would bring the world price per barrel down under $30/barrel, a breaking point for most oil producers.

            Thermal coal is bankrupt because it isn’t economically feasible. Peabody didn’t go bankrupt because of regulations: Peabody controlled every regulatory body it operated under through political donation, graft, influence peddling and corruption of public officials, and still couldn’t make a go of it.

            Why do you want people to pay more for dirty, corrupt energy?

            Your fear of renewables reveals the pattern of your motivations is to serve outdated fossil, no matter the consequence, not to understand or to do good for anyone but yourself.

            Pay what you owe.

          • FNLED

            Make sure you point out that these dissemblers are being tested for legitimacy.
            When shown to have none, they need to be outed as having zero legitimacy on the subject.
            Thank you for your diligent, fact based work.

          • david russell

            “Predicting is hard, especially about the future.” (Yogi Berra).

            This is a new tack for you, essentially: “renewables are inevitable.”

            We’ll see. Forever is very long time.

            Your current claims are not about climate change really, but about economics.

            Right now, renewables are unreliable and therefore parasitic on base power providers (and the taxpayer). Until and unless reliable, economic and scalable electricity storage technology is developed, renewables will remain a bit player in the energy mix — an uneconomic and unsustainable energy solution.

          • Bart_R

            My claims are indeed about economics. So are yours. You’re making obscuring statements contrary to fact for transparent motives: you don’t want to stop your deadbeat Free Riding ways.

            Renewables are cheaper, and moreover economies of scale favor renewables. The more solar you deploy, the cheaper per kWh solar becomes, and that trend ends far after all the energy demand in the world is met, for centuries. The same is true of wind. Geothermal is more true, given that trend won’t end for thousands of years. Multi-scale hydro power is a marginal additional cost on top of increasingly necessary water management as precipitation patterns change, and essentially has a negative cost.

            Claiming renewables are unreliable is simply a lie, and always has been, besides ignoring that geothermal and hydro are far more reliable than fossil ever was or ever will be. Engineering ‘conventional wisdom’ based on 1900’s grid design assumptions has been shown false for decades. There are everywhere in the world counterexamples to the myth of unreliability.

            Coal-funded congressmen sponsoring coal-lobbied ‘reports’ are blatant advertisements for corruption of public officials, and little more. China has since 2010 mothballed or reduced 90% of its coal generation, bucking those hard predictions about the future made in 2011 by US Coal under the guise of a congressional study. China in 2015 and in ratifying COP 21 has completely reversed the factors feeding into your obsolete, and always wrong, ‘report’.

            You’ll cite any source, cherry pick any piece, to spin your claims.

            And that’s before counting the harm of Free Riding to the Market, or the damage of climate change, extreme weather, acidification, crop nutrient loss and soil fertility drop.

            The bills are piling up.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            if you believe all of the above, then you are wasting your, my and everyone’s time discussing it with me.

          • Bart_R

            Nah. Just wasting your time, as you apply it to lying and cheating.

            Which seems a fair response to lying and cheating, from the point of view of those you lie to and cheat.

            At least, my belief system embraces that liars and cheats ought be penitent and rebuked. So when you snarl ‘believe’, it’s just a reminder to me of the moral system you reject.

          • david russell

            So you are lying and cheating. That’s your choice. I don’t lie.

          • Bart_R

            Let’s quickly review your claim, “I don’t lie.”

            And while I’d like in all humility to be able to make the same claim, what human being could say so honestly?

            Let’s start with your straw man interpretation of what I said, “..essentially: ‘renewables are inevitable.'”

            This could not be seen as an honest reading of my post, which you mischaracterized and then attacked with yet more lies, cherry-picks, point-missing and infamy.

            Calling a cheap source of peak power ‘parasitic’ is blatantly false. California and Texas are revelling in the cost savings of having essentially free wind and solar driving out the expensive fossils who have been the real parasites on utility consumers for decades, after paying the capital cost of providing renewable infrastructure.

            Reliable, economic and scalable renewables predate fossil electric power, in the form of hydroelectric and biofuel, and geothermal electric has over a century of proven performance behind it.

            Do you dispute any of these facts?

            Do you agree your claims are in conflict with these facts?

            Admit and apologize, or, well, we already know you pathologically won’t and can’t recognize how much of a liar you are, so just pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            I read your post again, and am more convinced that my “renewables are inevitable” summary of it is spot on. Anyone other than Bart disagree?

            I admit that it never occurred to me to consider hydro in the “renewables” category. That may be an oversight on my part, but I’m thinking hydro has few remaining opportunities for development, at least in the US. I’m not an expert on hydro, however.

            For sure wind and solar are parasitic on the base power producers until and unless the electricity storage problem is solved.

            Geothermal? Is there anything material happening with this?

            For sure if you are advocating geothermal power as a solution to the unreliability of solar and wind, I say “go for it.” What isn’t it happening already, I wonder?

            In reviewing your latest post, my original summary (“renewables are inevitable”) seems apply to it as well. I’m rather impressed with myself in coming up with a 3 word description that encompasses both your long posts.

          • Bart_R

            Hah. I can save you five syllables: “david russell lies.”

            While renewables would be inevitable under a true Free Market, where no fossil lobbyists controlled any politicians, none of the over $5.3 Trillion in subsidies to fossil happened globally (a quarter of that in the USA), regulations weren’t skewed to favor fossil, and the lowest cost option always won fair bidding processes, we know the Market isn’t free, we know there are fossil lobbyists, we know there are corrupt, gullible and incompetent politicians, we know fossil is subsidized, we know regulations do favor fossil, and we know people pay more than they should for electricity because of these follies.

            And you need to be spoonfed this like Pablum.

            What I posted was a reply to your claims, proving them false.

            And you dodged.

            Calling the less expensive source of peak power ‘parasitic’ is blatantly false. Do you dispute this?

            California and Texas are revelling in the cost savings of having essentially free wind and solar driving out the expensive fossils who have been the real parasites on utility consumers for decades, after paying the capital cost of providing renewable infrastructure. Do you dispute this?

            Reliable, economic and scalable renewables predate fossil electric power, in the form of hydroelectric and biofuel, and geothermal electric has over a century of proven performance behind it. Do you dispute this?

            You say you weren’t aware. You quibble about where things you never considered are. Is that your version of admission and apology?

            We already know you pathologically won’t and can’t recognize how much of a liar you are, so just pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            It’s pointless to debate with a loon such as you.

            I am not saying “renewables are inevitable.” I’m saying that’s your position. Now you seem to be hedging (claiming special interests will prevent it). This is something new.

            In the US, oil company subsidies amount to about $3.5B annually….. a drop in the bucket. I’d like to see how you get to “one quarter of $5.3T.” I’m going out on a limb here (not really) in saying, “You can’t show this.”

            We know there are fossil fuel lobbyists….. and solar lobbyists….. and wind lobbyists..,.,and so forth. I never said otherwise, and so what? That’s the way the game is played,

            Solar and wind are parasitic on base power providers and on the taxpayer. That’s just a fact. Your denial of this is irrelevant. It’s also wrong.

            I don’t know what Californians and Texans views are ….. about anything really. They are both big diverse states, one typically Democrat and the other typically Republican. I wouldn’t live in California given the outrageous taxes. Texas I actually do business in.

            I already said I was thinking of solar and wind by “renewables.” You don’t hear much about hydro these days. I suspect that’s because potential hydro sites have mostly been developed. I have no problem with geothermal, but then I don’t know anything about it. Why hasn’t it taken off, I’d ask?

            I don’t have to apologize for not considering hydro and geothermal as renewables. Why would I?

            The most you’ve shown is that I left out a couple of minor players in the renewable mix. Worst case that’s a mistake, although not much of one. I also left out dung. So did you. Are you going to apologize?

          • Bart_R

            How twisted a web of lies you build. First you claim I had a position that was nothing like what I wrote, then you took my THIRD rebuttal of your false claim and called it ‘hedging’.

            And you repeat lies and contortions taking on that ‘hedging’, the evidence from my actual position that the position you imagine isn’t mine as if your false arguments somehow mean my actual views would make it possible for me to consistently take your fictional version of my views.

            It’s not worth my time to point you to the IMF’s independent audit for the sources of the $5.3 Trillion figure or the size of US subsidies. You’d just lie about it.

            All I need demonstrate is you can’t admit when you’re wrong, and can’t apologize, and only ever look for new chances to lie.

            And really, you make that so easy.

            The more you write, the more how much is wrong with you becomes clear.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            This is silly. I say my summary of your position (“renewables are inevitable”) is accurate. You deny this. I can’t see a way to proceed on this. So let’s drop it.

            I say in your third attempt where you mention special interests blocking a free market, that is accurately described by me as you hedging your “inevitability” meme. You deny this. I can’t see any way to proceed. Let’s drop this too.

            You say it’s not worth your time to accept my challenge that US fossil fuel subsidies are NOWHERE CLOSE to 25% of $5.3T. I say: Bwahahahahaha. Sure. It’s not worth your valuable time. Sure. I note that you DID NOT challenge my claim the US subsidies to domestic oilcos is only $3.5B, a bit more than 1/2000th of $5.3B.

            I’m pretty sure I allowed that renewables could include hydro. Why does this suggest an apology is in order? Were your feelings hurt?

            And now I finished replying to every point. Why are you wasting your time on this?

          • Bart_R

            You can’t see a way to proceed?

            When the author of something tells you that you have interpreted the author’s meaning wrongly, that’s considered authoritative.

            You are authoritatively wrong, on the authority of the author whose writing you are wrong about.

            And you haven’t admitted you’re wrong. Which is as expected.

            You’re pathological. You can’t get over yourself. You can’t apologize for your wrongdoing. You are, however, an excellent warning to others of the price of being a profligate liar.

            These responses aren’t for your benefit; you can’t benefit from correction or information, fact or education, opportunity to better yourself or opening to admit your errors. These responses are for the benefit of others.

            Thank you for serving as a poster child for lying.

          • david russell

            You…. an authority!!!?? Again, that sharp sense of humor. Once you write something, it’s meaning is public. If your fail in conveying your intent (assuming that’s important), the failure is yours. Frankly, I can’t see why you don’t like my summary. It is after all your position, is it not?

            As I read on, I see once again that you are a loon. Moreover, you seem an angry loon.

            I thought you said you didn’t care what I think? Was that a lie?

          • Bart_R

            Dude. Everyone’s the authority on what they’re the author of; and while you may believe your own mockishly dubious position, it still makes you the buffoon.

            How can anyone care what a buffoon thinks or feels?

            Be the cautionary tale, play that role to the hilt.

            And pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            “Everyone’s an authority on what they’re the author of.” How do you know that? Language is not a private phenomenon. You wrote what you wrote. I read it. I have as much right to say what it means as you do. It does not mean what you meant it to mean, however much you may wish it.

          • Bart_R

            Back to the topic, rather than abstracted snarl.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SuwyBUm6wA

            Authors retain rights of authorship. That’s how copyright works. That’s why we put quotation marks around the literal words of others we cite.

            Make whatever preposterous off topic red herring claims you will; you have zero credibility.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            What is your point about copyright law? You certainly can’t claim copyright gives you the authority to ascertain what your words mean. Copyright prevents others from copying your words essentially for profit…..whatever your words mean….indeed even if your words are gibberish. This is a very gray area to enforce because people cut/paste all the time, use Xerox machines and so forth.

          • Bart_R

            Lying liar can’t stop himself. See his compulsion drive him to more twists, turns and contortions, and not an admission of wrong or apology in sight.

            For my part, I mock lying liars lightly, as there but for the grace of average human integrity go I.

          • david russell

            Actually, I just enjoy slapping you around to see what goofy thing you’re going to say next. The copyright gambit was quite goofy. Whatever will you come up with next?

          • Bart_R

            What’s this? Verbal violence? Pervy visuals? Is it possible we’re finally seeing some truth about something from david russell, disgusting oversharing though it is?

            Would explain his obsession with ‘position’.

            But let’s be serious. Feeble david russell sprouting muscles and a spine? Bwhahahaha.

            He’s just trying to save face.

            Fantasize on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            I make no secret that my hobby is to inform the ignorant willing to learn on the truth about climate science and when I run into ignoramuses like you, I take out the knives.

            You actually do most of heavy lifting in embarrassing yourself (e.g., your 2.5m of sea-rise by 2100….or twice that!!…..or more!!!!! and your nonsense about copyright law).

            You keep the nonsense coming and I’ll keep playing.

          • Bart_R

            Knives, now. Help! Help! I’m being verbally oppressed by a stranger with verbal knives!

            What a laugh.

            Keep playing with your ‘knife’ on your own time. Just don’t make the rest of us have to watch.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Pathetic come-back. Why not continue with your nonsense on climate alarmism so I can continue humiliating you?

          • Bart_R

            Wow. Going back over your posts, it becomes clear what you’re about is gratification of the luridly off-topic kind. You’re into humiliation fantasies? Eugh.

            Your advances are unwelcome.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            You say “my advances are unwelcome” but you keep coming back for more. “Methinks the Lady doth protest too much.”

            Humiliating you is no fantasy. It’s a public service.

            But lately you seem to have given up making ludicrous climate claims and I’m beginning to lose enthusiasm. Kindly come back with some more whoppers, like 5-9m of sea rise by century end.

          • Bart_R

            Eugh.

            Get help.

            What is it with the whole denier-perv syndrome? Don’t tell us, no one cares.

            Just pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Someone cares. That would be you. You seem to have run out of dumb things to say about climate science. But you still want to get beaten bloody.

          • Bart_R

            Share your fantasies somewhere they’re appreciated. I’m quite sure there are places on the Internet for people with your tastes.

            Just stop forcing them on people who are simply not into you that way, or any other way.

            At least we know now what motivates your obsession with oil.

          • david russell

            The lions tend to stay where the zebras are. You’re a zebra.

          • Bart_R

            Dude, I’m pixels, a Bayesian Additive Regression Tree in R, except inside your skull.

            And it seems I’ve gotten so deeply inside your skull you’re having violent and lurid fantasies.

            Scratch the surface of a denier, and you eventually find their real motives: fear, greed, politics, control.. but I must admit, you’re the first one I’ve found who denies because of libido.

            And while I value diversity as much as the next person, I’ve got to say you’ve Rule-34’d the topic of Climate Change in a gross and disgusting way.

            Fantasize about beasts on your own time, but maybe share it less; kids could be reading your posts.

            Oh, and pay what you owe. Maybe just sanitize the cash first. Ew.

          • david russell

            You have way too high an opinion of yourself. I use you as a foil. I’ve told you that, and you still don’t get it, but keep coming back for more.

            Stop wasting time with the above gibberish and post some more of your goofy climate change beliefs. I need to sharpen my knives on something juicy, like your 4-9m of sea rise by century end. That was a real Lollapalooza.

          • Bart_R

            The more you write, the more how much is wrong with you becomes clear.

            The more you share the lurid details of the inside of your skull, the less anyone cares what you’ve ever had to say.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            I’ve noticed the more you write, the less you say.

          • Bart_R

            All that chest-thumping you do. “I’ve eviscerated Gavin’s paper hereon. It took hardly a paragraph.”

            Dr. Gavin Schmidt wrote a paper that you eviscerated?

            Not using your absurdly mistaken Myrhe misconceptions?

            You don’t even understand how ridiculous you look.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            So Mr. Helpful, why not show us all my “mistaken misconceptions (sic)”?

            Oh, you can’t. I almost forgot.

          • Bart_R

            Well, we can start with your wrong usage of quotation marks. And of “(sic)[sic].”

            See, I didn’t write “mistaken misconceptions”, but “..mistaken Myrhe misconceptions..”; had you wished to allude to words I used, but not exactly, you ought have used single quotes, not double.

            This isn’t your first foray into misrepresenting what other people have written. As you’re a pathologically lying liar, it’s more likely that when you refer to anything another person has written that you’ll be doing so deceptively. You don’t seem able to help yourself. Such as your misrepresentation of how Myhre’s math works.

            Also, ‘(sic)’, or more properly ‘[sic]’ is a usage indicating a spelling or grammatical error.

            In Mathematics, a single counterexample suffices; no mathematician is obliged to detail all your mistakes, just one, so far as arithmetic goes.

            And we’ve already gone around this carousel ride.

            Myhre has produced not one, but several different sets of calculations, each of which rely on specific data and underlying assumptions stated in his papers. You cherry pick out the calculation, ignore the underlying assumptions, and attempt to apply Myhre’s long-term calculations to individual cherry-picked years. These fundamental errors in your usage produce silly outcomes.

            Myhre’s approach is the equivalent of taking the number of children in 30 different families and averaging them, then drawing conclusions about groups of other sets of 30 different families. Your approach? You’re doing the equivalent of asserting that there is a family out there with 2.4 children.

            QED.

            By the way, that’s the proper usage of ‘QED’; yours was not.

          • Robert

            The fake quotes….
            And not being able to bring one paper forward supporting his hypotheses…..

          • Bart_R

            It’s easier to understand the nature of david russell’s excesses when you take a step back and notice the pattern of his lurid and violent fantasies following frustration of his intellectual pretensions.

            All this is porn for his disgusting tastes.

          • david russell

            Ok. I’ll try to use single quotes from now on.

            “mistaken Myhre misconception” is still a goofy construct as a ‘mistaken misconception’ is a double negative.

            So your substantive claim above is that Myhre’s formula doesn’t work except for long periods. Where does this goofy notion come from? How long is long? Your unsupported claim about this isn’t compelling.

            And let’s say that there is some material minimum period required to apply Myhre’s radiative forcing formula. If it’s longer than say a year, as the entirety of CO2-induced CO2 IR warming is based on this formula, the whole of climate science would seem to collapse.

          • Bart_R

            You’re still not getting it; but then, missing the point is part of your whole ad nauseum schtick, isn’t it?

            Your ludicrous claims of any one formula being a keystone that by attacking you can bring down all of science?

            Just more of your buffoonery.

            Try not to turn this into more fodder for your disgustingly lurid violent Internet fantasies, and..

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            So you have been outed. Instead of designating how long a time period it requires to use Myhre’s formula for Co2 radiative forcing ( which I said you couldn’t do), you now want to walk away completely from his radiative forcing calculation. Bwahaha. Then to make your failure complete, you suggest there are many such formulas, but naming none of them. You’re just flying by the seat of your pants and have no knowledge of the science….at all.

          • Bart_R

            Myhre himself specifies the time period.

            Go back to the paper Myhre published in 1998, or the one from 2002, for details.

            You can’t expect people to do your legwork for you on the formulae you use.

            And as you’ve never accepted any facts from anyone, but only cherry pick, straw man, contort, twist and miss-report, what would be the point of anyone even trying to address your ad nauseum?

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Wrong answer.

            Indeed, no answer at all.

            I repeat: how long is necessary before you can use Myhre’s formula for CO2 radiative forcing?

          • Bart_R

            Repeat all you want. No more Pablum for you.

            If you’re using a formula someone else created, it’s up to you to read their directions for how to apply it.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            So you are lying , then. Justt as I thought.

          • Bart_R

            How long is a climate in years?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffjIyms1BX4

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            There is no scientific answer to your question. There is a heuristic that climatologists put forth of 30 years. This is totally arbitrary. I would argue we are in the post-LIA climate, which started when the LIA ended sometime in the 1800’s arguably.

          • Bart_R

            Blah-blah-blah.

            Myhre used 30 years. Using Myrhe’s equations for lengths much shorter or longer than Myrhe’s produces meaningless results.

            You can argue any red herring you want, ad nauseum; it doesn’t make you not wrong.

            And you can’t admit your mistake; you won’t apologize for it; you’re just going to keep on lying.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            You say Myhre used 30 years. I will accept that. I defy you to show where Myhre says using shorter time periods will produce meaningless results. And if you can show this, then I say, his results are meaningless for all time periods.

            There are cycles, say the AMO/PDO cycles. The PDO has about a 60 year cycle. So per force if you apply Myhre’s formula for from the end of a low point in the cycle to the top of the high point, you will get totally different results starting with the high point to the low point. ….And for all 30 year periods in between.

            I just don’t believe your characterization of Myhre. I think you are making up your own rule. Prove me wrong.

          • Bart_R

            First show me a family with 2.4 children in it.

            On second thought, given your literalism, don’t.

            And the rest of your red herrings?

            Ignored.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Thanks for admitting by your failure to support your claim that you lied about Myhre’s formula giving meaningless results for less than 30 year periods.

          • Bart_R

            *yawn*

            No admission. No apology. No learning from your mistakes.

            Straw man and spin. Predictable as ever.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            Ah, but Bart you are too dumb. Saying “No admission. No apology” leaves out: “No denial.”

            If you were just a wee bit canny, you could have DENIED that you lied. But you didn’t.

          • Bart_R

            Your petty antics are too dull to even remark on.

            Pay what you owe.

          • david russell

            I owe you a slap in the face for lying.

          • Bart_R

            Antics still too dull.

            Lurid violent fantasies pop up with you predictably whenever you’ve been squashed.

            Pay what you owe.

          • Robert

            Well said, Thanks for such a thorough reply!

          • Cold Miser

            “Which you say about just about everything said by anyone not you.”
            What? Can you form a coherent sentence? That makes no sense.

          • Bart_R
          • Cold Miser

            Typical. I let Bart know his sentence is incoherent and he pastes an irrelevent made up chart. Stupid is as stupid does.

          • Bart_R

            Try to stay on topic.

            And if you don’t understand how charts work, go back to school.

            Oh, wait. You’ve been repeatedly schooled, and it never seems to take.

            Give up on learning, you can’t do it.

            Just pay what you owe.

          • Cold Miser

            Bart, how can anyone even understand what your topic is? Your sentence makes no sense. I’m asking you what it means. Instead of clarifying the sentence, you paste an irrelevant, incomplete, made up chart. Is this your strategy? To purposefully confuse with incoherent sentences and aimlessly pasted made up charts with missing information with no explanation? Here’s a tip. When making up your fake charts, start with labeling what the x and y axis is.

          • Bart_R

            Seriously, you don’t know how to read WfT’s charts?

            Take it up with WfT.

            Or, educate yourself by clicking on the helpful links.

            Who has time to spoonfeed the willfully ignorant?

            Pay what you owe.

          • Cold Miser

            I asked you why you couldn’t write a coherent sentence. Instead you paste an irrelevant chart. How is the chart related to your incoherent sentence? And you ask me to “stay on topic’? You are absolutely pointless.

          • Bart_R

            It’s hard to know whether to be moved to pity or derision in the face of such utter prideful ignorance.

            How long have you been commenting on a subject you’ve failed to avail yourself of the most basic facts about?

            No more Pablum for you.

  • Mac

    Whole lot of “idiot” and “moron” references from a certain person.

    • ROO2

      It’s a sad reality when dealing with science deniers.

      • Mac

        Actually, it’s just juvenile behavior that occurs when the immature run out of cogent arguments.

        • evenminded

          The arguments have been made. The subjects simply cannot admit their errors.

          Look for yourself. The global temperature drop from RSS is not 1.2C.

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2016

          • Mac

            I live up north on the prairies and this year behaved nearly exactly as recorded in 1927.

          • evenminded

            That’s nice. The globe did not. We’re over 1C warmer on average.

          • Mac

            Good for you I hope this warming trend comes here with bells on.

          • evenminded

            You have no clue about AGW. Just another mathematically incompetent, scientifically illiterate denier.

            What a surprise.

          • Mac

            You voted Clinton didn’t you…how did that math work out for you ?

          • evenminded

            LOL

            The last bastion of the terminally stupid. If you can’t address the topic at hand change the subject.

            Take care Mac.

          • BBQman

            LOL!

          • RealOldOne2

            “how did that math work out for you?”
            Not so well, as their 97% consensus probability that Clinton would win was just as bogus and their 97% climate scientists agree propaganda meme.

            Read all about the failed math of the poor climate alarmist who was left with no brain here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/28/dicaprio-climate-catastrophe-film-boosts-clinton-campaign/#comment-2998726958

        • Mensch59

          Would those terms be acceptable if they were aimed at a poster who believed in a geocentric solar system or who denied plate tectonics?

          • Mac

            Are “idiot” and “moron” acceptable when aimed at those disagree with your particular science ?

          • Mensch59

            LOL. Science isn’t based on “agreement.”
            Using your criteria, when is it accurate to observe a poster writing as a “moron” or an “idiot”? Do you think a non-moron or a non-idiot (who claims to be scientifically literate) can deny plate tectonics or believe in a geocentric solar system?

          • Mac

            Okay, you’re an idiot and a moron. Are you finished blowing hot air yet?

          • Mensch59

            Funny. It was you who objected to these terms and now (since it suits your fancy) it’s you utilizing them.
            See how cognitive distortion works?

          • Mac

            I do now…

          • Mensch59

            … especially when I look in the mirror. FIFY
            You’re welcome.

          • Two Americas

            “Your particular science?”

          • Mac

            I know, words are hard.

          • Two Americas

            No, not really.

        • ROO2

          Incorrect. When the statement of others have been shown to be idiotic, as has been the case many times, then it is no more than a statement of fact.

  • Mac

    Wow, 100 years of weather data and suddenly the climate changers are experts.

    • evenminded

      It doesn’t take an expert to read a graph and see that the global data from RSS does not show a 1.2C temperature drop in 2016.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2016

    • ROO2

      Wow, 100 years of weather data and suddenly the climate changers are experts.

      Perhaps listening to a Republican scientist might help you:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tMeqjbA94I

      Here is a roundup of the Earths climate and the drivers of it:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

      • Mac

        I’m not political at all. You really need a hobby.

        • ROO2

          Then just watch the second clip of a lecture. Heavens knows, you might learn something about the planet on which you live.

  • Bart_R

    Why did it get so quiet all of a sudden?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/abd4f691b563da0d4a94e32a99687156c4cde2cb9cab7b51222036e4a163421a.png

    They went to all the trouble to become mods and channel owners elsewhere, but still are proud to be banned for their ‘harmless’ off topic ‘shenanigans’, and defensive about how badly they’ve been treated.

    Fossil waste dumping uses up scarce weathering and lignification fruits of the land; that scarcity is a good due Market rents from dumpers.

    Collect what you’re owed from them.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More