Monday, January 12, 2015

Global Warming Problems In Australia

Australians decided to elect a prime minister that is a devoted climate change denier. Once elected, Tony Abbott went about dismantling any kind of climate change reform he could get his hands on. One of the things he did was to get the carbon tax repealed. So, instead of having the polluters pay for the pollution, he decided the taxpayers should.

Now, Australians are getting more of what they paid for. Last year (2014) has been found to be the third hottest year in Australia's history. They got off pretty easy. It has been found to be the hottest year ever recorded for the planet over all. This hot year is leading to the worst wildfire season they have had in the last 30 years. I'm sure Prime Minister Abbott will tell them he isn't a scientist but the science isn't settled. Isn't that what they say when they can't refute the science?

I'm sure the Australians losing their homes to the fires will be comforted by his ignorance.

88 comments:

  1. I have looked for an Australian bushfire index, I haven't been able to find one. A trend may well be visible. I have no doubt that the rising temperature trend will result in more bushfire weather days.

    My own experience is coastal Sydney has become warmer and more humid, especially at night. I have been sleeping without blankets for months.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Instead of discussing the issues, you made an ad hominem attack on me. I think that was an easier for you than addressing the points I've made.

    Maurice Strong is the evil mastermind that wanted to collapse Industrial society, not me. I also showed how Margaret Thatcher used Global Warming to reach her goals. And the Club of Rome really exist. I'm not making this stuff up. I don't see empirical evidence of AGW, and I'm skeptical of the IPCC's accuracy in it's reporting to support it's carbon tax and green energy alternatives and this equals to "grand conspiracy claim of a bunch of evil masterminds that have a plan
    to cause the collapse of the industrialized world in order to impose
    their own dictatorial regime", so that makes me a "Extreme lunatic fringe, conspiracy nut, left reality type of mentality" person. You could of showed integrity by just saying that I am a AWG skeptic that is not easily swayed. It's a shame, I overestimated your potential to discuss and debate logically.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are correct on one of your statements. I didn't address what you said because it is easier for me. You were only half correct on another statement. I'm not going to address it, but you didn't make any 'points.' A weird, grand conspiracy theory does not qualify as a legitimate 'point' and there is nothing here to debate or discuss logically. I deal with conspiracy theorists frequently and have had to for a very long time. Many of my friends over the years have been conspiracists and I even have family members that think that way. Each and every conspiracist that I have ever known has one common trait - they are convinced they know the 'truth' and any kind of evidence or logic you can produce only works to convince them they are more enlightened than anyone else. All of the reality and evidence only works to convince them everyone else has been fooled.

    I worked with one of my students that was like that. One of the conspiracies he talked about all the time was the supposed chemspray program and he gave me this story about how an American Air Force plane in the program accidentally sprayed a Canadian town. We looked it up. There was no such USAF base the report claimed the American plane came from and there was no such town in Canada. There was no news history anywhere about such an occurrence. When I showed him there was absolutely no evidence to support his claim he proudly stood there and said, "See! They've hidden all the evidence! That proves it!" The sad thing is, he was completely serious. To him, the total lack of any proof was the proof his story was real. He finally asked me one day, "Why don't you believe in any of these stories?" I asked him why he believed in all of them.

    Based on the length of your comments and the passion you are showing, you have obviously gone way down the slippery slope. That is your choice. But understand where that puts you in society - the lunatic fringe. Don't be upset when people judge you that way. You have made your choice.

    Now, notice I did not address any of your claims and I really don't care to. I have a very full schedule and I don't like spending my time spinning my wheels. But, I'll give you one thing to think about - check out the work of Naomi Oreskes. She is a professor of science history. Her book "Merchants of Doubt" is excellent. Take a look at this video to get a better understanding of the history of climate change science. It's about one hour long and she does a really good job.:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steph is right, Professor. It's all a long con started by Fourier, picked up by Tyndall, then Arrhenius, now carried into modern day by the PhD's who work in the field.


    What's most amazing about the con, and what is most impressive about Steph's discernment, is that not one scientist has broken character, not even once, doesn't matter if they work for industry or in academic research. Despite the fame and fortune that would come from revealing the con, not one scientist anywhere has unveiled it. Yet, Steph sees through it all, through almost 200 years of observation and experiment which those thousands of scientists have faked as part of this con.


    I hope she stays around because I don't just enjoy her "English as a second language" brand of writing, but because I want to know what happened to JFK and Abraham Lincoln.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The problem with comments such as Steph's is that I am obviously part of the conspiracy. As a member of the secret society of which I am a member and no one one has ever heard of (its a secret!), it is my sworn duty to safeguard the great conspiracy and not let anyone expose it. All of us scientists know this and have been hiding it from the public.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Atmospheric physics is an enigma wrapped inside a riddle, hidden under a Pop-tart.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Once again, you are wrong on many levels. First, this isn't the classroom and I am not bound to any kind of teacher/student relationship with you. Which is good for you because you would be getting a very poor grade for the poor quality of your work.

    No, I did not bully you or call you names. I merely described the path you have chosen to take. And, there is no doubt about it, this is a path you have chosen to take despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Don't blame someone else for identifying what you have advertised.

    To try and claim you do not believe in a crazy conspiracy is pretty pathetic. Once again, go back and read your comments where you claim there is a grand conspiracy to destroy the industrialized world so certain people can impose a dictatorship. How insulting that is to say all of the climate scientists over the last 150 years have been working for this conspiracy. You are the one that should be offering apologies, not me.



    Your mention of ClimateGate is very good evidence of how you have left reality behind. Anytime I hear someone pull this out I know exactly what their mindset is and how poorly they have bothered to do any research. If you had, you would know that emails were illegally stolen, selectively quoted out of context and even rewritten by the hackers who refuse to identify themselves. If they were so justified and so in the right, why are they hiding? Maybe because they broke the law and committed libel while lying to the whole world? Are you even aware that eight different independent reviews found no wrong doing on the part of the scientists? Can the deniers make that kind of claim? Why not?



    And, no, there are no credible scientists arguing if climate change is real or manmade. I don't know if you are quoting Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, the Idso family and others like them, but anyone that does has truly rejected science. The only debates left are the details of exactly what is happening and how. The science on the AGW issue is settled. The only people claiming otherwise are deniers who cannot provide any scientific evidence to support their claims.


    As for the list of issues you provided - I have addressed every single one of them in this blog and in my book. So, don't tell me I haven't done my part as a teacher. You have the responsibility as a student to study. It is up to the student to do the homework, not the teacher. And, trust me, if you tried that in a university classroom the professor will let you know you are in error.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You still insist that I must be a conspiracy theorist nut-job choosing said path because I presented you with FACTS about Maurice Strong and Margaret Thatcher and how they wanted to use Global Warming to fit their agendas. But I suppose because I think emissions trading is a scheme, I must be a nut-job.

    You have not shown me one piece of evidence showing higher CO2 has resulted in higher temperatures today. Now if the atmosphere showed the characteristic heating pattern of increased greenhouse warming, then I would believe that CO2 is a major cause of global warming. But it doesn't. Laboratory theory is fine, but real observations don't back up current levels of CO2.

    How can I be "leaving reality" by mentioning "Climategate" in context to scientist fighting and disagreeing amongst themselves and how the IPCC reports on these issues? Did the hacking of emails from the (CRU) at the University of East Anglia not happen?

    If Richard Lindzen isn't credible why is he, John Christy and Judith Curry appointed to the American Physical Society POPA panel in March of 2014? Is he not credible to you because you have opposing views?

    I never stated you haven't done your part as a teacher, just criticized your bullying tactics and descriptions you used of me. My mother is a teacher and holds a Ph.D in English and Math. She always told me, "Instead of having students spit back the information I feed them, I would encourage them to think for themselves by asking relevant questions." I also have two uncles, one a physicist, the other, a retired rocket scientist (won a Snoopy Award from Nasa). I suppose they have influenced me greatly in my thinking and helped my understanding of sciences.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You have shown no such evidence about Maurice Strong and Margaret Thatcher. What you have done is to take some quotes out of context and expanded them to fit the conspiracy you want to believe in. I know for certain your statements concerning Margaret Thatcher are sadly mistaken. Do your history lessons. The reason I refuse to go through all of your false allegations is because you will refuse to believe anything I, or anyone else, says to you. You have already proven that and that is why I say you have left reality. Don't worry, it's crowded over there and you won't be alone.

    As for the evidence for global warming, I already told you that I have provided that information, both here in this blog and in my book. But, there are countless other sources to answer your questions. The issue is you expect to sit there while someone else does your work for you. I have made claims and it was my responsibility to back them up. I did. Now, you have made claims and it is your responsibility to back them up. You haven't. Since you are refusing to do even the least amount of homework on your own, I'll give you a start and point you towards the submissions to my challenge to deniers:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/challlenge-submissions.html

    All submissions have my response (with references hyperlinked) to show why they are scientifically invalid. There were no scientifically valid submissions.

    The reason people like John Lindzen (Roy Spencer, Christy, Idso, etc.) are not credible is because they have all been shown to falsify their research while taking money from the fossil fuel industry. I cannot think of any other profession that would allow someone to still practice under those circumstances.

    Again, I deny I have ever bullied you. If you were a Republican and I said so, would that be bullying? If you were a golfer and I said so, would that be bullying? If you subscribe to conspiracy theories and I call you a conspiracist, how is that bullying? Which raises an interesting question. If you find it offensive to be called a conspiracist, why do you subscribe to conspiracy theories?

    It is not my fault you want to be a member of the lunatic fringe so don't try to put the burden on me. Just don't be offended when people say you are a member of the lunatic fringe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What I accused you of, and you then insisted you did, is to use only the surface temperature. That is less than 7% of the heating. 93% goes into heating the oceans, 3% goes into heating (and melting) ice and about 1% goes into heating the atmosphere. So, really, you're only considering about 3% of the total heating when discussing surface heating. I'll allow you to include ice in the 'surface' and we'll round off to 7%. Still, that means you are ignoring 93% of all heating. You can find just about anything you want if you're going to ignore 93% of the data.


    When you include 100% of the data, the result is warming is increasing the the rate of warming is also increasing.


    I'm sorry, but there is nothing valid that I see in your posting. Everything you say has already been debunked here and in other places. You can work the data any way you want, but if you use an invalid argument the result will also be invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 13, 2015 at 9:58 PM

    That you hyave heard og it before does not make it untrue, did you read the post, or are you going by your preconceptions?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I read the post, have read other posts, have seen videos and have read the actual Agenda 21 in the agreement. What I haven't been able to find is anything to make me think any of the claims are, in any way, credible. They are just one more "the government is going to take over" conspiracy. I find it amazing how many people fall for them, but I have gotten used to it. I'm sure you feel like you are very enlightened and nothing will convince you otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Incredibly, you continue to get everything wrong. There is no hostility in my responses. A little bit of weariness from having to respond to the same silliness all the time, but no hostility. You are free to believe in anything you want and I am not trying to stop you.

    There is no insult or attack. If someone goes out and works hard to acquire a label, it is not insulting to oblige them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The huge effective thermal capacitance of the planet (mostly the oceans) limits true average global temperature change to about 0.7 K per century"

    While that may be true. So are the Willie the Woolly Mammoth event and "From Forests to Ice .. flipped from a cold to a warm state"

    Northern hemisphere land surface could cool rapidly, reducing crop production.

    200 year cooling cycle -- 1,050 year
    cycle breaking up -- Ice Age Doom?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "is to use only the surface temperature"
    Where are ocean temperatures kept?
    Ship logs, perhaps water temperatures at ports.

    Surface temperature is most relevant,
    since we live and grow crops on the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sunspot correlation correlation is there. (even correlates with historical wheat prices) Pangburn's projections rely on NASA solar activity projections.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rothschild, Gore and Blood, are complicit in the Carbon Extortion Racket -- Hence the Greenhouse Gas Warming Hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 14, 2015 at 9:03 AM

    "I'm sure you feel like you are very enlightened and nothing will convince you otherwise."


    Your way of saying that I am stupied and that you are smart?

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, my way of saying you're delusional. You may actually be quite intelligent, although your comments don't convince me of that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Uh, what?

    Surface land temperatures are not the most relevant. They are just the easiest to obtain. The oceans dictate the world's climate.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So, let's be clear. You unapologetically make a 100% unsubstantiated and extreme conspiracy claim that insults several world leaders, government agencies, thousands of climate scientists and 150 years of science. Then, you get upset when you get called out and claim you're the victim. The truth is, Steph, I treated you very civilly, even with kid's gloves. If you end up going around making this conspiracy claim to other people you will get a far worse reaction than anything I said to you. Brace yourself for the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Chilly Willy - Ice Folly (HQ) - YouTube"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbwfP0dqjk

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Surface land temperatures are not the most relevant"
    Yes, deep sea creatures are little affected.
    But, for humans, warm and food are good.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Sorry, no."?
    Then, what does Pangburn base his projections on?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Are you volunteering to pay more Carbon Taxes
    and be Georgia Guide Stoned, to save the Planet from being Barbecued?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 14, 2015 at 9:51 AM

    If I am delusional disillusion me by expaining how, in spite of no decrease in the amount of co2 we are pumping into the air which is the claimed drive of global warming, there had been no warming for 18+ years. This is becoming quite embarrassing for the alarmests who made such strong perdictions which have not came true.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You clearly did not read them. All of these articles show that the warming has not stopped. In fact, the world has continued to warm and now, what was exceptional warming in the 1990s, is routine today.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 14, 2015 at 10:45 AM

    I will just address this one, the one on Chery Picking: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/first-10000-and-1000-challenges.html

    To pick now as a starting point and to go back in time to the last time they was any statically detectable warming is not cherry picking, it is demonstration how long it had been since any warming has been detected. 18+ years.

    ReplyDelete
  29. But, by your very argument, if we go back 16 years, there has been considerable warming. You said 18+ years. Well, 19 years qualifies as 18+ and if we go back 19 years there has, once again, been considerable warming. In other words, you are not interested in the facts, evidence or science.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 14, 2015 at 11:30 AM

    No, you are
    twisting the facts to fit your preconceptions or you do not know what 18+ means. If you go back 19 years you go past the point
    in which there has been any measurable warming.
    The + in the 18+ refers to the 3 months past the 18 years, I though that
    you were smart enough to know that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No, the plus means "more than 18 years". Do you write 18++ for 18 years and six months? Do you write 18+++ for 18 years and nine months? What about 18 years and 11 months? Is that 18+++ and 2/3 +? And, you are finally catching on. I purposely cherry-picked the points. The difference is that I told you so and I also told you why I did it. The deniers did it without telling and they aren't telling you why they picked that particular date. That is lying and deceiving. You apparently don't care that someone is lying to you and trying to deceive you for their own gain. But, that is your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 14, 2015 at 12:17 PM

    I told you why now was picked for the starting date, and why 1996 was picked. I do not deny that the world has been warming since the last ice age, but I have strong reservation that man’s itiful contribution the co2 content in the atmosphere has anything to do with it. Nobody is lying to me; I am quite capable of reading the studies and drawing my own conclusions.

    As I said in this post, “I make no claims of being a climate scientist, but am of average intelligence, if not above, and do have the ability to understand concepts, arguments, and statics, gained in acquiring two undergraduate degrees, one in Electronic Engineering and the other in Computer
    Information Systems, as well as an MBA. I am making no appeal to authority here, just giving argument to back up my assertion at the beginning of this paragraph. While no climate scientist, I have followed the arguments both pro and con for at least the last 15 years.”

    https://carolinacowboy.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/the-sun-is-the-driver-mans-co2-is-a-non-issue-says-a-non-climate-scientist/

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Nobody is lying to me"

    Yes, I'm afraid they are and it isn't even a secret. It is well documented and even admitted to. There is an entire industry devoted to doing that very thing, paid for by the fossil fuel industry. The worst part is, they know people will believe them, even when they are caught.

    "I am quite capable of reading the studies and drawing my own conclusions."

    Read my comment above.

    "I make no claims of being a climate scientist,"

    But, then you proceed to try and prove you are. I call this line the "I'm not a scientists, but I'm going to proceed to show just how much of a jackass I am" line. Really. "I'm not a scientist but I'm going to say I'm smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined."

    And, I don't believe your credentials at all. If you had that much education I would expect you to at least be able to put together a proper sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 14, 2015 at 1:59 PM

    "But, then you proceed to try and prove you are."

    No, what I did was to prove my capacity to understand the issue and draw my own conclusions and explain now I reached my conclusions.

    Regarding my writing ability, I am dyslexic, and have carried that burden since childhood, were it not for the computer and spell/grammar checker I would not as well as I do. You are not one of thos Internet Liberal who will discount the truth being presented because of that type of mistake are you? If I let people shame me because of my writing ability I would have to shut up and craw into a hole, which is most likely what you would like.

    Give me your fax number and I will fax you copies of
    my degrees if that what it takes, I do not lie!

    ReplyDelete
  35. I still don't believe your credentials because you show such a limited amount of education in your reasoning. But, I realize there are lots of people that can't think and still manage to get through school. Your limited ability to engage in logic is apparent with your reference to me being an "Internet Liberal." First, you obviously have no idea what my political views are. Second, it's irrelevant, and any kind of logic would tell you that. The reality of climate change is the same, no matter what my political views are. So, why did you raise that issue? An intelligent person wouldn't.


    What is clear is that you have abandoned logic and rejected science. It is also clear that you will not bother with anything factual that you disagree with. So, our conversation is over. I am here to try and help people understand the issues, not get into mindless debates. They are a total waste of my time and I am very busy. There are plenty of other blogs and websites with people that agree with your viewpoints.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 14, 2015 at 2:38 PM

    I did not say that you were a "Internet Liberal.", I asked "You are not one of those Internet Liberal who will discount the truth being presented because of that type of mistake are you?"

    Seems to me that in your last paragraph you described yourself, time will tell this tale, either you are right and we will all cook, for we are not going to stop increasing the co2 in the air, or I am right and the warming has stopped because the sun’s output has changed. You ilk give the sun no credit, while I give it almost all
    of the credit.

    Seems to me that you only want to talk to people who agree with you for any extended amount of
    time in any case, so I bid you ado and wish you well.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Why would you even raise the issue of someone's political viewpoints in a scientific discussion. You might as well have asked me if I was black or a Jew. Equally irrelevant and equally offensive.

    I am glad to speak to anyone that has an open mind. Yours clearly is not. I am willing to speak to anyone that is interested in learning. You obviously are not. I am willing to speak to anyone if it is a good use of my time. Talking to you is not.

    You have a right to believe anything you want and I am not interested in interfering with that right. But, I am not going to wast my time discussing the science with you when you have already stated you reject the science ("I am not a scientist, but....).

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 14, 2015 at 4:50 PM

    "Why would you even raise the issue of someone's political viewpoints" Because you jumped on my composition just like they do, that is why.

    If you are going to quote me, get it right. I said "I make no claims of being a climate scientist" are you a climate scientist? What is your lame to authority other than faith in what your chosen climate scientist tell you?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Both you and Christopher have greatly misunderstood and exaggerated the points I discussed pertaining to Thatcher and Strong by taking an unproven scientific theory and using it to gain certain political agendas. Scientists and political leaders that were once avid believers of AGW have now become skeptic. Some have even gone as far as calling it a hoax. My opinion, my "conspiracy", is that something out there affects our climate more than CO2 and none of the computer models knows what it is. The IPCC is using unproven science to push environmental agendas.

    Responding with insults is a telling sign of insecurity and the need to have control of something.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Apparently you still have not understood the analysis. This was a waste of time. I wonder how you will rationalize the coming decline of average global temperature.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Apparently you still have not understood that I do understand your analysis and it is scientifically invalid. I truly wish the average global temperature would decline, but I am afraid that is just a pipe dream. We are stuck with the situation we have created. BTW, NASA and NOAA will be announcing the state of the climate for 2014 live this Friday.

    http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-noaa-to-announce-2014-global-temperature-climate-conditions/

    ReplyDelete
  42. Please reread your posting. You clearly stated the purpose of the IPCC and climate change was to foster the destruction of the industrial world so an dictatorial world government could be installed. The idea that Margaret Thatcher would even briefly consider the idea of letting some other nation rule Britain is so silly that it is proof enough the claim is, itself, ridiculous.


    Go back to the original posting, you have not done your homework and you continue to fail in that regard. You expect someone else to do the heavy lifting for you and you're getting upset when I won't be the one. If you really were willing to do the homework on the issues you have questions about, you would find the answers. I recommend the RealClimate.org website. It is probably the single, best resource on climate change science. In fact, you can just do a search on the term "realclimate.org +" what ever topic you are researching.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "they"?

    My credentials are that I am a professor of physics and astronomy. I do research in climate science, planetary geophysics and space physics. But, I don't need those credentials to cite the expert sources of information available. The science is clear cut and is there for anyone, even the "I'm not a scientist, but..." people.

    ReplyDelete
  44. You are completely wrong. The science of climate change is proven and you should know that if you are going to make so many claims. The science is settled on this issue. As for governments taking actions, it is the responsibility of all governments to take actions that in the best interests of its citizenry. The evidence is also conclusive that climate change is not to the benefit of the people. There are billionaires that are making money by selling fossil fuels, but the majority of the world's people are suffering lowered standards of living, at the very least. Many are suffering much more extreme results, including death and injury. The Pentagon considers climate change an immediate national security threat. If it is a threat to us, then our government has the responsibility to act.



    To take a couple of quotes out of context and to wrap some unsupported claim around them is a "100% unsubstantiated and extreme conspiracy claim" I could take some isolated quote from any person on this planet and generate any conspiracy I wish to around it. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say I don't think you are, personally, the one that did this. Someone else did it for you, just just bought into it and helped spread it. It isn't as offensive as some conspiracies I have heard, but it is certainly offensive and false.


    You mouth crazy conspiracy theories, without anything to support the claim, and you expect to receive some tea and cookies reception. Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way.



    You accused me and my fellow scientists of being part of a grand conspiracy to destroy the world and impose a world dictatorship. And, now you say I was the one that is uncivil?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 14, 2015 at 7:23 PM

    Then you got a dog in this fight. But it appeared to me that you background in physics and astronomy no more qualify you as a climate scientist than mine in Engineering does me. Can you link me to a paper that you have authored in climate science, I would love to read it (them).

    ReplyDelete
  46. "your analysis and it is scientifically invalid."?

    Straightforward assumption that;
    "The sunspot number anomaly time-integral drives the temperature anomaly trend. It is axiomatic that change to the average temperature trend of the planet is due to change to the net energy retained by the planet."

    Also regress on planetary cycles (Nicola Scafetta)
    Farmers' Almanac's moon phases,
    barometric pressure, tree line in the Arctic . .. ?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Then explain why solar activity and solar sunspot cycles have been declining while the global heat budget has been climbing. If solar activity was responsible, we would see global cooling, not warming. BTW, that is a prominent piece of evidence arguing against claims it is only a natural cycle we're in. The data clearly shows temperature is increasing while solar activity is decreasing.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You can start with my book on global warming. Then, you can progress to my postings, including the submissions to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge (with my responses included). All of those works provide extensive references to the science and data of climate change.

    Here are links to just a few of my papers:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JA000202/abstract

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008EO430002/abstract

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JA009813/full

    http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/tpt/45/6/10.1119/1.2768699

    I am currently in the process of writing three papers that I hope to submit this year.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "BTW, that is a prominent piece of evidence arguing
    against claims it is only a natural cycle we're in"

    Yes, chem-trails warm, slightly.
    However, will not stop the Ice Age.

    ReplyDelete
  50. As with any other cloud, jet contrails provide cooling during the day and warming at night.

    http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html


    If the ice age is coming, I wish it would hurry up and cool off the heat that is getting worse every year.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Roy Spencer has been, repeatedly, shown to falsify his research. Any time I see his name referenced, I know it is not going to be scientifically valid. Sorry you thought he was credible.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "repeatedly, shown to falsify his research."
    Applied to daytime, Roy Spencer link supports your quote

    In general, lower clouds, lower surface temperature.

    ReplyDelete
  53. If I were to bother reading his work, I am sure he is trying to find a way to twist it into evidence climate change is not real. He receives funds from the Heartland Institute (fossil fuel money) and is an avid creationist, rejecting any science that does not conform to that belief.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Roy Spencer rejected Nikolov and Zeller Unified Theory of Climate and stated Ferenc Miskolczi was not outside of mainline climate theory.

    "is an avid creationist" -- Universe has a tendency towards development (entropy reduction)

    ReplyDelete
  55. The second law of thermodynamics requires the entropy of any closed system to continuously increase. The universe is thought to be a closed system, so total entropy is increasing, not decreasing.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "The second law of thermodynamics requires the entropy of any closed system to continuously increase"

    Second Law is not a Law -- it is the solution to homogeneous, direction-independent, random velocity. Velocity is direction dependent in a force field. Therefore, the Second Law cannot hold anywhere in the Universe. (Entropy can only be a local approximation)

    ReplyDelete
  57. You forgot to mention more active pests, sea level rise, stronger storms, etc. etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Sorry, when you say climate change, I consider that a natural occurrence. I'm sure you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming. Greenhouse and global warming are different. Proof of global warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming. We have not been warming as predicted by the models from IPCC. Temperatures have been flat, CO2 is rising. We have not been warming for at least the past 15 years. For the last half million years, temperatures have risen before CO2. The cause and effect of CO2 is not there. Something else caused the warming. Adding additional CO2 has less and less affect. It's already absorbing almost all it can. CO2 has been much higher in the past and we still entered an ice age. CO2 in not the driving force of climate.
    To say the science is settled is unscientific, " Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?

    – Galileo Galilei

    I think I must hit a nerve with you. I think you find it offensive that I question the IPCC and the scientist that support AGW, as your last paragraph claims.

    ReplyDelete
  59. That is truly an example of someone rejecting science. Good bye and good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I'm trying to not sound 'alarmist.' Too much truth at one time disturbs some people.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "That is truly an example of someone rejecting science. "?

    OK, you are refusing to think -- here is a quote;
    "The randomness of Brownian motion at thermodynamic equilibrium can be spontaneously broken by velocity-dependence of fluctuations ... Uncompensated decreases in total entropy" http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/6/1/76

    A simple example is Lapse exploitation.
    Different gases have different apses, run a heat engine.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Climate change is exactly what it sounds like - the climate is changing. Normally, in the modern context we can drop the 'manmade' or 'anthropogenic' for short hand sake. Similar to saying 'math' instead of 'mathematics' all the time. To make sure you are clear, the leading terms should be included. AGW is the accepted abreviation for 'anthropogenic global warming.' Global warming also refers to exactly what it sounds like - the globe is getting warmer. Climate change and global warming are not the same thing. Global warming is part of the changing climate, but there are many other aspects of the climate that also changing, such as rising sea levels. spread of disease, droughts and floods. more severe weather, loss of biodiversity, etc.

    The statement about models is one of the most falsified statements deniers make. Roy Spencer has even gone so far as to generate a false graph that is frequently cited. This graph has been thoroughly debunked. Take a look at these articles about models:

    http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.VLdGCsm1tLM

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2006.00211.x/full

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/08/lets-talk-about-climate-models.html

    The claim of "flat" temperatures is also false. Take a look here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/first-10000-and-1000-challenges.html

    The issue of the CO2 and the CO2 lag are also well explained.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

    These were all easy to find, as are many more like them. So, why didn't you?

    Your quote of Galileo is very ignorant. No one is saying we know everything. That is why we have climate scientists. But, the suggestion that what we know can be falsified because we will learn more is a false argument. We don't know everything about planetary orbital mechanics, but we don't have to worry about finding out the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun. No new knowledge will change that. Likewise, no new knowledge will invalidate manmade climate change. It will only help us to understand it better.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Hard to say if people are having "second thoughts" about Abbott. Liberal people will always vote Liberal, Labor people will always vote Labor. And I mentioned it before, in my opinion the Liberals did not win, it was Labor who lost. If Labor had stuck to their original policy for a carbon tax instead of being forced into doing it by the Greens party, I suspect they would have picked up more points for integrity.

    Personally I am finding Abbott disappointing. I knew he is ideologically opposed to doing anything about AGW, but I never thought he would appoint outright deniers such as Maurice Newman as business advisor.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I think it interesting from an armchair psychology point of view. The professional deniers seem to project their own dishonesty onto other people.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I admire your patience with the Gish Gallop...

    ReplyDelete
  66. I admire your patience with the Gish Gallop.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "You forgot to mention more active pests"

    Women, in revealing clothes, could be a
    distraction? -- Bring on Global Warming!

    ReplyDelete
  68. There's a section in the Bureau of Meteorology's State of the Climate Report on heatwaves and fire. http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/


    This doesn't satisfy me because I've seen something somewhere, but can't find in my bookmarks, which is much more detailed and explicit about the lengthening of the fire season and the areas burned. It's probably miscategorised so I'll keep on looking. (At least for a while.)

    ReplyDelete
  69. Well, blow me down.


    I've been reading and commenting on climate matters for several years now. Finally!! Someone has mentioned something unrelated that I've never seen (or thought of) before.


    The Georgia Guidestones? Really? As my granny would've said, "Well, I never!"

    ReplyDelete
  70. The USA isn't alone in this kind of nonsense. One state minister here, not in my state thank goodness, has "ordered" a regional coastal council to erase the projected sea level rise (to 2100) from all their planning / approval processes. Their area includes a large _island_ along with an abundance of creeks and rivers connected to the ocean.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-09/seeney-removes-climate-change-references-from-council-plan/5954914

    ReplyDelete
  71. Unless we stop the Ice Age, Sea levels will decline considerably.

    ReplyDelete
  72. OK, Tahoe Steph. You say you're interested in the history of climate science.

    Start with the easy stuff in Wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Plass

    And you should note carefully. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was a _central_ issue in their considerations. It has never, ever, been overlooked by anyone connected with the radiative physics of atmospheric gases. It's a bit of reading, but if you're so keen on learning what all this stuff is about I'd recommend it.

    If you prefer narrative form try Spencer Weart. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm . He does a nice mix of science and scientists and you can read it in digestible portions.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "The problem with comments such as Steph's
    is that I am obviously part of the conspiracy."

    You are part of the collusion to deceive,
    on behalf of the Carbon Tax Extortion Racket.
    Those who go along are generously rewarded,
    others destroyed. "Mind is in the crucible of survival"

    ReplyDelete
  74. Read Nikolov and Zeller "Unified Theory of Climate"

    For additional entertainment, there are Second Law Violations.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Rexx Vernon SheltonJanuary 15, 2015 at 7:21 AM

    I was only able to open the two middle links, the first and last and both dead links. From what I could gather you were discussing Sunspots in the first and Solar Winds in the second.

    It appears that your assertion in “Not to Worry: Solar Magnetic Activity for Cycle 24 Is Increasing” proved to be in error, or at least failing to live up to your
    expectations, as the Cycle 24 seems to a lot less active, thus far, than Cycle 23 which was less active than Cycle 22. It seems to be on the down slope of Cycle 24 activity to me, unless it has a double peak it will be approaching the Dalton Minimum range. Maybe you can explain why I should not believe that the sun is the driver of both the warming and cooling of the earth?

    I am curious to know how well the predictive ability
    described in “Predicting the mean Bz magnitude, revisited” has performed, do you have enough data to confirm or reject its predictive ability?

    I don't know if you use Facebook or not, but if you do, I would like having you as a friend. I have many friends who are on your side of this issue, and we do get into decisions on this subject as well as cosmology, and other issues.

    These days I spend most of my time reading and playing with horses, if you are interested in
    becoming Facebook friend you can find me using this email address: thecarolinacowboy@yahoo.com. My feelings will not be hurt if you would rather not.

    ReplyDelete
  76. While denying the data they will still try to tell us its good for us. So, why hide the data?

    ReplyDelete
  77. I've always if George W Bush had been a Democrat, the Democrats would have loved him.

    ReplyDelete
  78. AS regards your Venus cite, in my original post above3, in section 2 the venus Fraud in sentence I state this:


    "According to NASA's web site [http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Venus] Venus' has a temperature of 864 degrees Farenheit [F] (462 degrees Celcius [C],735 degrees Kelvin[K])."



    Do you have any reading comprehension skills.


    Following that statement I also state that THAT temperature is at 90 atmosphere of pressure, not at the earths 1 atm. Meaning you cannot compare teh two due to this pressure difference. I then talk about the Gay-Lusacc Law that states that as a gas' pressure rises, its temperature increases. and that the temperature of Venus is 90 times greater than its thermic heat. And if we use the Pressure Temperature formula we can remove the pressure induced heat and learn what the true thermic heat is, since in speaking about global warming we are speaking not about heat caused by increasing pressure, but rather from increasing warmth due to a greenhouse effect trapping more thermic heat from the sun.


    So would you like to try again and explain how the Venus info web cites support anything you've said.


    Like for instance, does it say there is no such thing as pressure heat???? OR that pressure doesn't increase temperature????

    ReplyDelete
  79. Constant, since you don't want to read anything
    here is a short and simple video on Youtube.com that explains the three basic gas laws Boyle's law, Charle's law and Gay-Lusac's law. PAY ATTENTION!


    There are sevearl other good videos that will teach you exactly what I said.


    NOTE, Keating hasn't given you one single cite supporting his posts. HE claims pressure heat is not real, yet here, and in a dozen other videos, the teachers state that temperatures go up when pressure goes up, and the relationship is directly proportional.
    Raise the pressure of a gas, and its temperature will rise to the same degree as the pressure did.


    IF the heat is not real, then what are these people talking about?


    If there is not real heat, how can the temperature go up as stated?


    I've just given you one cite you can watch, it's only 8 minutes long. There are dozens of other videos that say the same thing I did.


    The more you watch, the more you learn.
    The more you learn the smarter you will be.


    I can't force you to learn, you have to want to not be ignorant of the truth.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5G2Q2_AuhM

    ReplyDelete
  80. Here is a video on YOUTUBE.com written and produced by Stephen Hawking. It tells you how stars are formed using PRESSURE HEAT (that Keating says is't real), to create the 10,000,000 degrees Kelvin of heat needed to fuse Hydrogen. It is only 6 minutes long, so it won't take you long to watch it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EnBBIx6XkM

    ReplyDelete
  81. I do not know if our political news gets over to the US much. Tony Abbott is facing a leadership challenge (a party-room/leadership "spill" they call it here).

    His likely successor if he loses is Malcolm Turnbull. Malcolm Turnbull is on record as supporting an Emission Trading Scheme.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme

    ReplyDelete
  82. It is making the news here. It seems he has really stirred up a fuss down there. I read about Stop Tony Meow and think its brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Tony Abbot survived the leadership spill by a good margin.

    ReplyDelete
  84. It was fun while it lasted. But, maybe it will serve as a warning that he needs to change his ways.

    ReplyDelete