Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

Waldo - you refuse to answer the question - why not tell us what you believe? I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. Your position is what exactly? You've never explained it - only criticized everyone else and cut and pasted. Is your belief exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? Is it that only humans can cause warming. If you killed every human on the planet, would all warming stop? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two?

Simple, since you stated stalking me in these recent days I opted to answer your request 3 times now... granted 1 of those answers flat out belittled you, another followed negate logic and the third... wait... actually 2 of 3 answers belittled you. You see Simple, over this recent stalking period of yours, you've presumed to state your position; however, when I repeatedly asked you to qualify your 30 year cycle nonsense by providing it's scientific foundation, you simply ignored me - how rude! Actually, you've been asked to substantiate that 30 year cycle nonsense previously - as well. And all we hear from you are Bush_Cheney's grasshoppers! Apparently, you feel that stating you have a position, albeit an unqualified position... seems to set you apart.

Simple... I'm putting you on stalker notice - should you presume to continue this charade of yours, I will be forced to stalk back and ask you, in turn, for your scientific substantiation to your 30 year cycle nonsense.

[wyly]

Perhaps you can site your particular source. Here's some peer-reviewed (not that it counts for much these days) information about CO2 Residence Time:

Here's the anstract from the actual study:

you might try find someone with an actual background in Climatology

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University. No discernable climate experience.

and his specialty COAL..lol...ya no self interest here...

rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors.

that sums up his knowledge quite well...so all this additional CO2 is not from anthropogenic causes because obviously that just disappears on it's own... while only naturally produced CO2 can accumulate... please explain how this magical CO2 separation happens Simple? and how anthropological CO2 cannot accumulate and natural CO2 does....

[Keepitsimple]

Simple, since you stated stalking me in these recent days I opted to answer your request 3 times now... granted 1 of those answers flat out belittled you, another followed negate logic and the third... wait... actually 2 of 3 answers belittled you. You see Simple, over this recent stalking period of yours, you've presumed to state your position; however, when I repeatedly asked you to qualify your 30 year cycle nonsense by providing it's scientific foundation, you simply ignored me - how rude! Actually, you've been asked to substantiate that 30 year cycle nonsense previously - as well. And all we hear from you are Bush_Cheney's grasshoppers! Apparently, you feel that stating you have a position, albeit an unqualified position... seems to set you apart.

Simple... I'm putting you on stalker notice - should you presume to continue this charade of yours, I will be forced to stalk back and ask you, in turn, for your scientific substantiation to your 30 year cycle nonsense.

I thought so Waldo.....you are too cowardly to state your position. As for 30 year cycles, it was obvious to me through observational history that we've gone through warming and cooling cycles of approximately 25-30 years. 1915-1945 was a warm cycle (depression/Dust Bowl), 1945-1977 was a cooling cycle (MacLeans "The Coming Ice Age"), 1978-2000 was a warming cycle (IPCC Alarmism), and now 2000 onwards is projected to be several decades of cooling. Those are just the facts as they have been observed. There are studies that tie these cycles to the PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation where the PDO changes from warm to cool mode. Seems to make some sense to me but it's a hard thing to definitively prove. It's not only whether there's a direct co-relation but if there is a relation, what makes the PDO change from warm to cool. Regardless of your feverish cut-and-pasting, we are only scratching the surface of Climate Change - looking at "consensus" for individual pieces and then trying to glue them all together and come up with another consensus. The truth is we still don't know "what we don't know". Observation makes for the best proof of science. Can you actually deny that these temperature cycles have occurred/are occurring......in spite of the fact that CO2 PPM has steadily climbed?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

The key word again is "concensus" - which leaves considerable room for scepticism of how much of a driver CO2 actually is. One of the major planks of the CO2 theory is "residence time" - how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being recycled by the oceans. Almost all studies have shown that CO2 residency time is relatively short - 10 years or less. The IPCC and their models use a residency time of 100 years. Was that choice driven by "consensus" or by convenience?

Link: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

short response - longer to follow... it is worthy of note that Simple links to a graphic from Solomon's, "The Deniers". Let there be no more mamby-pamby whining about the use of the designate denying label, "denier". Clearly, Simple has decreed it's truthiness!

[waldo]

I thought so Simple.....you are too cowardly to provide the scientific substantiation to the focal point of your position - the 30 year cyclic meme.

[waldo]

The key word again is "concensus" - which leaves considerable room for scepticism of how much of a driver CO2 actually is. One of the major planks of the CO2 theory is "residence time" - how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being recycled by the oceans. Almost all studies have shown that CO2 residency time is relatively short - 10 years or less. The IPCC and their models use a residency time of 100 years. Was that choice driven by "consensus" or by convenience?

Link: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

Here's some peer-reviewed (not that it counts for much these days) information about CO2 Residence Time:

In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC.

Link: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

almost all studies, hey Simple? Without even giving your Solomon "The Denier's" graphic any consideration... how many of those studies are considering the molecular level of CO2 versus it's residual time within a fluid dynamic system... oh, say... one like the carbon cycle, perhaps! Again, you continue to generically reference "IPCC models" - in this particular reference you make, care to specify which particular models you're so designating? Didn't think so... /snarc

Simple, when in doubt, check the search function within MLW - as we've danced on this residence point, at least once previously - here, with special consideration towards your citation reference, R.H. Essenhigh: that post, once again, with emphasis!

Even though there are several statements of probability, there are also several key statements of certainty. For the IPCC, at least some important fundamental science is settled. The following is an example of one of the IPCC's statements of certainty:

“Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3}”.

In the article “Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO2 in the Air”, available here, Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, The University of Oslo, Norway, writes:

“In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO₂ in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO₂, the molecule ¹²CO₂, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule ¹⁴CO₂ is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. ...”.

Putting aside R. Essenhigh’s main assertion concerning CO2 residence times, within that same linked to article, R. Essenhigh also throws in an assortment of other claims that have (also) been soundly refuted… R. Essenhigh also offers the following false assertions: that:

-

R. Essenhigh states

: “The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa.”

False

– the accepted feedback system is one where a CO2 induced temperature increase results in warming that causes oceans to outgas CO2 to the atmosphere in response to a lowering of CO2 solubility in warmer ocean water…increased warming causes increased atmospheric CO2 which brings forward the greenhouse effect….. in terms of global warming, temperature increases do not drive CO2 increases.

-

R. Essenhigh states

: “Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapour.”

False

– anthropogenic CO2 upsets the rough natural carbon cycle emission-absorption balance… where a percentage of human CO2 emissions are not being absorbed and remain in the atmosphere.

False

– Essenhigh’s claim reflects upon water vapour’s radiative transfer impact range as limited to the lowest 2km of the atmosphere and discounts the radiative transfer aspects of CO2 within the 2km-to-8km portion of the atmosphere… notwithstanding, the positive warming feedback loop between increased CO2 and water vapour.

In regards R. Essenhigh’s principal assertion concerning CO2 residence times, he addresses the simple molecule focused residence time of CO2 and completely discounts the much longer effective residence time relative to the near equilibrium between ocean/atmosphere and atmosphere/biosphere. The following paper from David Archer, one of the world’s pre-eminent climatologists, soundly refutes any of R. Essenhigh’s claims concerning CO2 residence times:

Summary

The carbon cycle of the biosphere will take a long time to completely neutralize and sequester anthropogenic CO2. We show a wide range of model forecasts of this effect. For the best guess cases, which include air/seawater, CaCO3, and silicate weathering equilibria as affected by an ocean temperature feedback, we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr.

A mean atmospheric lifetime of order 104 years is in start contrast with the ‘‘popular’’ perception of several hundred year lifetime for atmospheric CO2. In fairness, if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behaviour of the majority of the carbon. A single exponential decay of 300 years is arguably a better approximation than a single exponential decay of 30,000 years, if one is forced to choose. However, the 300 year simplification misses the immense longevity of the tail on the CO2 lifetime, and hence its interaction with major ice sheets, ocean methane clathrate deposits, and future glacial/interglacial cycles. One could sensibly argue that public discussion should focus on a time frame within which we live our lives, rather than concern ourselves with climate impacts tens of thousands of years in the future. On the other hand, the 10 kyr lifetime of nuclear waste seems quite relevant to public perception of nuclear energy decisions today.

A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.’’

[Keepitsimple]

almost all studies, hey Simple? Without even giving your Solomon "The Denier's" graphic any consideration... how many of those studies are considering the molecular level of CO2 versus it's residual time within a fluid dynamic system... oh, say... one like the carbon cycle, perhaps! Again, you continue to generically reference "IPCC models" - in this particular reference you make, care to specify which particular models you're so designating? Didn't think so... /snarc

[/indent][/size]

My point is that several of the building blocks of the AGW theory are formed by consensus.....but there are many scientists who disagree. Residence Time for CO2 is just another of those building blocks that are measured in a dubious fashion - according to scientists. Here's an article that was published shortly after Archer's phenominal claims.....simple English that makes a lot more sense that your cut-and-paste. But the main point is Waldo - the one that you just never acknowledge - is that there is substantial and valid scepticism in the scientific community - from experts in the appropriate field - as opposed to the catch-all "Climate Scientists".

We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.

"This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."

Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.

"This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the

isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements.

Then, with the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.

Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous.

"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process."

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without success.

"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere," Prof. Segalstad concludes.

"It is all a fiction."

Link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e

[Shady]

clearly... the "intellectual dishonesty" titled thread is yours. It's heartwarming to see you've at least become sensitized and impacted by that thread - we've made some progress... after all.

as for blogs Shady, I thought i was quite clear... like I said, Shady, "there's certainly no problem with bringing forward legitimate science based sources from blogs - you should try it sometime!"

Nice try. Your new statement allowing for "legitimate" science based blogs comes long after you already condemned the use of blogs by many of your critics. You can post all the CYA musings you want, but it doesn't change that fact.

And what makes a blog "legitimate?" Your approval? Pffttt. Who made you King of information approval? Answer. Nobody. And you're the last person who should be complaining about other people's sources. When your own sources are a bunch of crooked, lying, anti-scientific behaving politicans posing as scientific authorities.

[Michael Hardner]

The key word again is "concensus" - which leaves considerable room for scepticism of how much of a driver CO2 actually is. One of the major planks of the CO2 theory is "residence time" - how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being recycled by the oceans. Almost all studies have shown that CO2 residency time is relatively short - 10 years or less. The IPCC and their models use a residency time of 100 years. Was that choice driven by "consensus" or by convenience?

Link: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

When they create a correlation, that's exactly what they do - they figure out how much of a driver it is. That's what a correlation does.

[Michael Hardner]

My point is that several of the building blocks of the AGW theory are formed by consensus.....but there are many scientists who disagree.

That depends on what you mean by "scientists". A study in Science in 2004 found no papers that dissented from the consensus view from 1993-2003.

There are several prominent and vocal skeptics, who should indeed be listened to but they are a handful and they haven't (to my knowledge) dismissed the effects of CO2 but rather provided other hypothesis for warming, or have projected cooling temperature in the future.

As such, both you and the pro-AGW types on this thread are on either side of the truth. There is some skepticism in the scientific community, there is widespread skepticism in the public (due to poor media coverage of this, IMO), and there is also consensus.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[wyly]

That depends on what you mean by "scientists". A study in Science in 2004 found no papers that dissented from the consensus view from 1993-2003.

There are several prominent and vocal skeptics, who should indeed be listened to but they are a handful and they haven't (to my knowledge) dismissed the effects of CO2 but rather provided other hypothesis for warming, or have projected cooling temperature in the future.

As such, both you and the pro-AGW types on this thread are on either side of the truth. There is some skepticism in the scientific community, there is widespread skepticism in the public (due to poor media coverage of this, IMO), and there is also consensus.

does it look like these scientists are backing down from global warming

The entire faculty of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M as well as the Climate System Science group at the University of Texas have issued their own statements endorsing these views (atmo.tamu.edu/weather-and-climate/climate-change-statement; www.ig.utexas.edu/jsg/css/statement.html). In fact, to the best of our knowledge, there are no climate scientists in Texas who disagree with the mainstream view of climate science.

George Woodwell, Director Emeritus and Senior Scientist at Woods Hole Research Center:

The response to the vandals is to bury them with the data and experience of a century of scholarly research and analysis. The information that is important in making the decisions as to how to manage our world is unequivocal and must be advanced, not as questions at the edge of scientific knowledge where scientist like to dwell, but as the facts that they are, facts as immutable as the law of gravity. The climatic disruption is not a theory open to a belief system any more than the solar system is a theory, or gravity, or the oceanic tides, or evolution. This approach is uncompromising, partisan in the sense of selected for the purpose. It is not a lecture to undergraduates; nor is it ecology 101. It is a clear statement of what is required for government to do its job in protecting the public welfare. The scientific community has a firm responsibility in this realm now. This is not the time to wring our hands over the challenges to hyper-scientific objectivity, the purity of scholars, and to tie ourselves in knots with apologies for alleged errors of trifling import.[/Quote]

[Keepitsimple]

does it look like these scientists are backing down from global warming

George Woodwell, Director Emeritus and Senior Scientist at Woods Hole Research Center:

The response to the vandals is to bury them with the data and experience of a century of scholarly research and analysis. The information that is important in making the decisions as to how to manage our world is unequivocal and must be advanced, not as questions at the edge of scientific knowledge where scientist like to dwell, but as the facts that they are, facts as immutable as the law of gravity. The climatic disruption is not a theory open to a belief system any more than the solar system is a theory, or gravity, or the oceanic tides, or evolution. This approach is uncompromising, partisan in the sense of selected for the purpose. It is not a lecture to undergraduates; nor is it ecology 101. It is a clear statement of what is required for government to do its job in protecting the public welfare. The scientific community has a firm responsibility in this realm now. This is not the time to wring our hands over the challenges to hyper-scientific objectivity, the purity of scholars, and to tie ourselves in knots with apologies for alleged errors of trifling import.

Now THAT is truly scary and is a perfect example of why a growing number of scientists are so uncomfortable with this style of uncompromising political activism.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

Waldo - why is it so difficult for you to answer the question; to take a position - why not tell us what you believe? I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. Your position is what exactly? You've never explained it - only criticized everyone else and cut and pasted. Is your belief exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? Is it that only humans can cause warming. If you killed every human on the planet, would all warming stop? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two - OK, maybe three?

[Alta4ever]

Waldo - why is it so difficult for you to answer the question; to take a position - why not tell us what you believe? I am not a scientist and obviously, neither are you. Your position is what exactly? You've never explained it - only criticized everyone else and cut and pasted. Is your belief exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? Is it that only humans can cause warming. If you killed every human on the planet, would all warming stop? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two - OK, maybe three?

In his mind your not enlightened and intelligent enough to give a short explanation on his person position of global warming. He is one of those elites that thinks he is superior to all else, how dare you question him Keepitsimple.

These are precisely the reasons why he gets so upset when I won't debate with him or tell him my position on global warming and call him a fanatic.

[waldo]

Simple ton... you are already on stalker notice - do I need to get a restraining order?

I believe I said something about you ignoring the many repeated requests for you to provide the scientific substantiation to your 30 year cycle meme - after all, it's the principal your house of cards relies upon. You continue to ignore those many repeated requests, presuming not to have your house fall down! Please don't misconstrue this latest request of you as a like stalking moment... clearly, it's simply a confirmation of my stated intent to parallel your next stalking requests with a repeat of my own... me likee patterns.

instead you grace us with the likes of R.H. Essenhigh and T.V Segalstad - pure denier genius.

another question/request for you... another one for you to ignore: in your Concern Troll mode, where your qualified "claim" has you accepting to mankind influencing warming... just how do you reconcile that qualified "claim" of yours in relation to Essenhigh's complete failure in accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus... the physical basis on the driver relationship between CO2 and temperature. If you're going to accept the wild-ass claims of Essenhigh concerning CO2 residence times, you can't divorce yourself from his equally wild-ass claim that temperature drives CO2 levels. So, in your want to push Essenhigh as some qualified authority... you get his bundled best - which would seem to then have you swinging in the wind to align with your underlying Concern Troll position. Oh my! Denier dilemma, extraordinaire...

as for Segalstad, he's a nobody... that gets no serious consideration. As I can ascertain, Segalstad hasn't published anything in over 15 years... and what he has published all those years back, has nothing to do with the debate of AGW climate change. Perhaps you could surprise us and show something he's recently had published - maybe I've missed it. Of course, he does publish a wealth of info - on his personal blog ; however, it would appear he can't be bothered to actually formally challenge the science or formally introduce his own beliefs (his own science?).

[waldo]

These are precisely the reasons why he gets so upset when I won't debate with him or tell him my position on global warming and call him a fanatic.

actually... I don't typically give drive-by gutter snipers like you any real consideration. You're a non-entity that's never showed up with a serious post in any climate related thread... but you certainly have many, many drive-by snipes, that's a given. As for your position, don't hold it back on my account

[Alta4ever]

Simple ton... you are already on stalker notice - do I need to get a restraining order?

I believe I said something about you ignoring the many repeated requests for you to provide the scientific substantiation to your 30 year cycle meme - after all, it's the principal your house of cards relies upon. You continue to ignore those many repeated requests, presuming not to have your house fall down! Please don't misconstrue this latest request of you as a like stalking moment... clearly, it's simply a confirmation of my stated intent to parallel your next stalking requests with a repeat of my own... me likee patterns.

instead you grace us with the likes of R.H. Essenhigh and T.V Segalstad - pure denier genius.

another question/request for you... another one for you to ignore: in your Concern Troll mode, where your qualified "claim" has you accepting to mankind influencing warming... just how do you reconcile that qualified "claim" of yours in relation to Essenhigh's complete failure in accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus... the physical basis on the driver relationship between CO2 and temperature. If you're going to accept the wild-ass claims of Essenhigh concerning CO2 residence times, you can't divorce yourself from his equally wild-ass claim that temperature drives CO2 levels. So, in your want to push Essenhigh as some qualified authority... you get his bundled best - which would seem to then have you swinging in the wind to align with your underlying Concern Troll position. Oh my! Denier dilemma, extraordinaire...

as for Segalstad, he's a nobody... that gets no serious consideration. As I can ascertain, Segalstad hasn't published anything in over 15 years... and what he has published all those years back, has nothing to do with the debate of AGW climate change. Perhaps you could surprise us and show something he's recently had published - maybe I've missed it. Of course, he does publish a wealth of info - on his personal blog ; however, it would appear he can't be bothered to actually formally challenge the science or formally introduce his own beliefs (his own science?).

See Keepitsimple, elitist arrogant and a few other adjectives that aren't so nice. He is able criticize everyone else but when it comes to to put his own thoughts out there, either Waldo isn't smart enough to be able to have his own thoughts on the subject or he is scared of the criticism.

I am also of the opinion he is unable to condense his posts into a few concise sentences.

[Alta4ever]

actually... I don't typically give drive-by gutter snipers like you any real consideration. You're a non-entity that's never showed up with a serious post in any climate related thread... but you certainly have many, many drive-by snipes, that's a given. As for your position, don't hold it back on my account

No you write arrogant condescending paragraphs.

[waldo]

No you write arrogant condescending paragraphs.

huh! You wanted concise - I gave you concise

actually... I don't typically give drive-by gutter snipers like you any real consideration. You're a non-entity that's never showed up with a serious post in any climate related thread... but you certainly have many, many drive-by snipes, that's a given. As for your position, don't hold it back on my account

is there a problem?

[Keepitsimple]

Simple ton... you are already on stalker notice - do I need to get a restraining order?

I believe I said something about you ignoring the many repeated requests for you to provide the scientific substantiation to your 30 year cycle meme - after all, it's the principal your house of cards relies upon. You continue to ignore those many repeated requests, presuming not to have your house fall down!

I've already given you my best explanation of the 30 year cycles. I've admitted I am not a scientist - not even anywhere near that. My explanation was based on observations of the past century - warming, cooling, warming, now cooling again.....based most likely on the PDO. I make my best attempts to describe why I am sceptical that humans are the major driver behind Global Warming and that unless we change our ways, the results will be catastophic......but you Waldo, refuse to believe that there is ANY valid scepticism within the scientific community. Indeed, it's becoming obvious that you are the true "denier". You hold yourself up as the "smartest person in the room" when all your attitude does is present you as the narcissistic poster-boy for all that is wrong with the Alarmist community - reeking of self-righteousness and self-importance.

Now, once again: Waldo - why is it so difficult for you to answer the question; to take a position - why not tell us what you believe? Your position is what exactly? You've never explained it - only criticized everyone else and cut and pasted. Is your belief exactly what the IPCC says? Is it that humans are creating Armegeddon? Is it that we have already reached a tipping point and we are doomed? Are you a Suzuki nut and everything horrifies you? Is it that only humans can cause warming. If you killed every human on the planet, would all warming stop? What is your position on AGW Waldo - in a sentence or two - OK, maybe three?

Edited March 10, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[wyly]

Now THAT is truly scary and is a perfect example of why a growing number of scientists are so uncomfortable with this style of uncompromising political activism.

comprehension not working for you today...

George Woodwell-The climatic disruption is not a theory open to a belief system any more than the solar system is a theory, or gravity, or the oceanic tides, or evolution.

...you're evidently in that group of 20% of adults that still insist the sun orbits the earth, want to deny gravity as well?

[Keepitsimple]

comprehension not working for you today...

...you're evidently in that group of 20% of adults that still insist the sun orbits the earth, want to deny gravity as well?

So let me understand correctly.....you equate the 100% certainty of Gravity and the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun..... with the theory that humans are the principle driver of Global Warming/Climate Change. Is that what you are saying? There is no room for any doubt or any scepticism? Waldo doesn't seem brave enough to take a stand - will you?

Edited March 10, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

I've already given you my best explanation of the 30 year cycles. I've admitted I am not a scientist - not even anywhere near that. My explanation was based on observations of the past century - warming, cooling, warming, now cooling again.....based most likely on the PDO. I make my best attempts to describe why I am sceptical that humans are the major driver behind Global Warming and that unless we change our ways, the results will be catastophic......but you Waldo, refuse to believe that there is ANY valid scepticism within the scientific community. You hold yourself up as the "smartest person in the room" when all your attitude does is present you as the narcissistic poster-boy for all that is wrong with the Alarmist community - reeking of self-righteousness and self-importance.

a most typical denier action - much has been written about it. When actually confronted with science - real science - the denier retreats into an attack mode, one fully bent upon marginalizing and personalizing. Simple ton, we've had many posts, over many threads, that fully acknowledge the fundamental skeptical nature within science... that skepticism plays itself out through the proper formal channels - peer review/peer response. Your trolling the tabloids or the denier blogs does not equate to legitimate skepticism... it simply fulfills your agenda. Legitimate skepticism evaluates the science, brings challenge to the science or introduces new knowledge... that, in turn, is subject to the skepticism of other/all scientists. You ferret out the obscure, the trivial, the inconsequential - and would presume to equate that as legitimate "skepticism".

your stated best explanation for the 30 year cycle meme, isn't one founded in a scientific foundation, at least not one you're prepared to bring forward. Go figure... would it be because that lil ole meme has been so forcibly refuted... and you know it! Yes, you know it - that's precisely why you continue to refuse to substantiate it by providing citation support for it. You have the balls to throw out your putrid challenges to the science... to the IPCC representation of the science... while knowing - knowing - that the foundation of your denial, the 30 year cycle meme, can't be supported, can't be substantiated.

and since you stalked again:

Simple ton... you are already on stalker notice - do I need to get a restraining order?

I believe I said something about you ignoring the many repeated requests for you to provide the scientific substantiation to your 30 year cycle meme - after all, it's the principal your house of cards relies upon. You continue to ignore those many repeated requests, presuming not to have your house fall down! Please don't misconstrue this latest request of you as a like stalking moment... clearly, it's simply a confirmation of my stated intent to parallel your next stalking requests with a repeat of my own... me likee patterns.

[jbg]

There are studies that tie these cycles to the PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation where the PDO changes from warm to cool mode. Seems to make some sense to me but it's a hard thing to definitively prove. It's not only whether there's a direct co-relation but if there is a relation, what makes the PDO change from warm to cool.

A meteorologist I follow, Joseph D'Aleo (link to one of his studies), ties the warming and cooling cycles to the PDO. What other cycles might you be thinking of? And for the benefit of those on the Board who aren't scientists, please keep it simple (pun intended).

[Alta4ever]

a most typical denier action - much has been written about it. When actually confronted with science - real science - the denier retreats into an attack mode, one fully bent upon marginalizing and personalizing. Simple ton, we've had many posts, over many threads, that fully acknowledge the fundamental skeptical nature within science... that skepticism plays itself out through the proper formal channels - peer review/peer response. Your trolling the tabloids or the denier blogs does not equate to legitimate skepticism... it simply fulfills your agenda. Legitimate skepticism evaluates the science, brings challenge to the science or introduces new knowledge... that, in turn, is subject to the skepticism of other/all scientists. You ferret out the obscure, the trivial, the inconsequential - and would presume to equate that as legitimate "skepticism".

your stated best explanation for the 30 year cycle meme, isn't one founded in a scientific foundation, at least not one you're prepared to bring forward. Go figure... would it be because that lil ole meme has been so forcibly refuted... and you know it! Yes, you know it - that's precisely why you continue to refuse to substantiate it by providing citation support for it. You have the balls to throw out your putrid challenges to the science... to the IPCC representation of the science... while knowing - knowing - that the foundation of your denial, the 30 year cycle meme, can't be supported, can't be substantiated.

and since you stalked again:

Why do constantly fail to put your position out there are you a coward?