Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

I like to drive-by and gutter snipe. And you?

not so much

[Alta4ever]

not so much

Alta4ever, on 10 March 2010 - 09:04 AM, said:

I like to drive-by and gutter snipe. And you?

Can you match this to a time stamp because the time stamp I get from your quote of me is this timestamp='1268239011'.

but yet what I said at this time stamp was "Why do constantly fail to put your position out there are you a coward? "

So why are you being so intellectually dishonest?

You are attributing a quote that isn't mine you made it up. If your willing to do this where else have you compromised your credibility?

Nothing you now post can be of any value since you have no credibility.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Alta4ever

[wyly]

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?

NONE...100%...take it to the bank...as sure as the sun as the center of our galaxy anthropological GHG's are causing this current warming trend...the only questions remaining to be answered are "how fast it will occur", "what will be the damage", "can it be slowed or reversed"

[waldo]

You are attributing a quote that isn't mine you made it up.

oh really... it seems when you take liberties with prior posts, you feel a cursory "fixed if for ya/you" justifies it. My mistake - would you like me to edit my post with one of your 'I fixed it for ya/you' specials? (note: a basic search on a single sub-forum... oh my!) Squawk! Compromise, credibility! Squawk!

I fixed it for ya.

Fixed it for you.

[Alta4ever]

oh really... it seems when you take liberties with prior posts, you feel a cursory "fixed if for ya/you" justifies it. My mistake - would you like me to edit my post with one of your 'I fixed it for ya/you' specials? (note: a basic search on a single sub-forum... oh my!) Squawk! Compromise, credibility! Squawk!

So you are attributing rewriting a post to defame me as joke?

You really have no credibility do you.

[waldo]

So you are attributing rewriting a post to defame me as joke?

You really have no credibility do you.

you really should move along buddy - there's no (little?) chance for you to spread your separatist bent in climate related threads. Hey now... how did you like that one?

[Alta4ever]

you really should move along buddy - there's no (little?) chance for you to spread your separatist bent in climate related threads. Hey now... how did you like that one?

Wow you've really lost it haven't you.

So are you going answer Keepitsimples question or are you going to continue to evade.

[wyly]

you really should move along buddy - there's no (little?) chance for you to spread your separatist bent in climate related threads. Hey now... how did you like that one?

Trudeau was a co-conspirator with Al Gore...it's all a liberal/socialist plot to steal our money it's time for Alberta to separate...

[waldo]

you really should move along buddy - there's no (little?) chance for you to spread your separatist bent in climate related threads. Hey now... how did you like that one?

Trudeau was a co-conspirator with Al Gore...it's all a liberal/socialist plot to steal our money it's time for Alberta to separate...

well, uhhh... in fairness to myself, I did qualify... I did say Altaboy had "(little?)" chance to spread his separatist bent. (frankly, I was a bit surprised to realize that Al Gore was one of the original framers for the NEP - that little ditty doesn't get the real play it deserves - you see, it's all tied together!).

[waldo]

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).

if you follow D'Aleo (and I presume his cohort, Watts) and their co-authored SPPI nonsense, how are you taking to the complete and utter demolition of their SPPI claims related to "NOAA fraud, station fallout, warming bias in the temperature record, blah, blah, blah"). You know, that little SPPI thingee they co-authored without any scientific substantiation behind it... that got all the denier play on into the mainstream.

should we wait to read your, or Simple's explanations on how the natural variability aspects of PDO, La Nina, El Nino... account for global warming?

[Keepitsimple]

NONE...100%...take it to the bank...as sure as the sun as the center of our galaxy anthropological GHG's are causing this current warming trend...the only questions remaining to be answered are "how fast it will occur", "what will be the damage", "can it be slowed or reversed"

Thank you Wyly. At least you have the conviction to state your position. I don't have to agree with it, but I can try to respect it. I just wish that people like yourself could respect the fact that some people are sceptical. I'm still waiting to hear from Waldo.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

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).

They are one and the same.....I had mentioned the PDO as being the catalyst behind the cycles.

[Keepitsimple]

Wyly at least had the conviction to take a stand in answer to my question:

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?

Wyly responded:

NONE...100%...take it to the bank...as sure as the sun as the center of our galaxy anthropological GHG's are causing this current warming trend...the only questions remaining to be answered are "how fast it will occur", "what will be the damage", "can it be slowed or reversed"

So, once again: Waldo - why is it so difficult for you 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

[Alta4ever]

Wyly at least had the conviction to take a stand in answer to my question:

Wyly responded:

So, once again: Waldo - why is it so difficult for you 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?

Careful waldo might start to try to write your posts for you too.

[Michael Hardner]

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).

Hey jbg - that's not really a study. I linked to a real study earlier in the thread that correlated CO2 and radioactive forcing to temperature, computing correlation coefficients and so on...

[waldo]

So, once again: Waldo - why is it so difficult for you 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?

yawn

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.

[waldo]

They are one and the same.....I had mentioned the PDO as being the catalyst behind the cycles.

don't stop there...

look, I'm truly questioning whether I should have highlighted your contradiction with Essenhigh... sigh... if only you could pick and choose the denier nuggets from your rogues gallery of deniers. In any case, you seem to have skipped right over the post where I mentioned Essenhigh's complete failure in accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus... the physical basis on the driver relationship between CO2 and temperature. Like I said, you get the bundled best with Essenhigh. Perhaps we need to qualify the position you presume to hold... the one you won't provide any scientific foundations for:

do you also subscribe to the Essenhigh position that temperature drives CO2?

[Keepitsimple]

don't stop there...

look, I'm truly questioning whether I should have highlighted your contradiction with Essenhigh... sigh... if only you could pick and choose the denier nuggets from your rogues gallery of deniers. In any case, you seem to have skipped right over the post where I mentioned Essenhigh's complete failure in accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus... the physical basis on the driver relationship between CO2 and temperature. Like I said, you get the bundled best with Essenhigh. Perhaps we need to qualify the position you presume to hold... the one you won't provide any scientific foundations for:

do you also subscribe to the Essenhigh position that temperature drives CO2?

I wouldn't say I subscribe to it but there is certainly some compelling evidence that it might be so. Thank you for mentioning Anthony Watts so much recently - I hadn't really paid much attention to him but I've been looking at his website recently and a guest writer (denier blogger to you) put together a good summary of the sceticism about the "CO2 lagging temperature" issue.

There are still people who insist that changes in CO2 can explain the pattern of glacial and interglacial periods. This article will present several arguments demonstrating that is incorrect, based on the ice core data below

The most obvious reason is that CO2 lags temperature. Changes in ocean temperature have driven the changes in atmospheric CO2, as explained here. CO2 is not the driver.

Now consider the earth 20,000 years ago. Temperatures were low – about 8C cooler than the present. Due to the cold ocean temperatures, levels of atmospheric H20 (the primary greenhouse gas) were low. CO2 levels were also low, at about one half current levels. The earth’s albedo was very high due to extensive ice cover which had much of North America and Europe buried in ice. Using the popular “CO2 and feedbacks explain everything” theory, all of these negative feedbacks should have driven earth further and further into an irrecoverable ice age. Cold ocean water should have continued to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere.

Atmospheric H2O should have continued to decline due to lower vapor pressures over the cooling oceans. Albedo should have continued to increase due to expanding glaciers further from the poles. All of these negative feedbacks should have caused temperatures to decrease further, and the death spiral should have continued. But none of these things happened. Instead, the earth warmed very quickly. CO2 was absolutely not the driver, and positive/negative feedbacks had to be in balance.

Consider the earth 14,000 years ago. CO2 levels were around 200 ppm and temperatures, at 6C below present values, were rising fast. Now consider 30,000 years ago. CO2 levels were also around 200 ppm and temperatures were also about 6C below current levels, yet at that time the earth was cooling. Exactly the same CO2 and temperature levels as 14,000 years ago, but the opposite direction of temperature change. CO2 was not the driver.

Now consider 120,000 years ago. Temperatures were higher than today and CO2 levels were relatively high at 290 ppm. Atmospheric H20 was high, and albedo was low. According to the theorists, earth should have been warming quickly. But it wasn’t – quite the opposite with temperatures cooling very quickly at that time. CO2 was not the driver.

If CO2 levels and the claimed lockstep feedbacks controlled the climate, the climate would be unstable. We would either move to a permanent ice age or turn into Venus. Warmer temperatures generate more CO2. Increased CO2 raises temperatures. Warmer temperatures generate more CO2 …… etc. It would be impossible to reverse a warming or cooling trend without a major external event. Obviously this has not happened.

An exercise to get people thinking for themselves. If the temperature at some point in the past was 4C cooler than now and CO2 levels were 240 ppm, was the temperature going up or down? There are ten points on the graph that match those conditions. Half of them have rapidly rising temperatures and half have rapidly falling temperatures. It becomes abundantly clear that there has to be another degree of freedom which is dominant in controlling the glacial cycles.

In the ice core record, temperature drives CO2 – not the other way around. Sometimes the earth warms quickly at 180 ppm CO2. Other times it cools quickly at 280 ppm CO2. Again, CO2 is not the driver of glacial cycles – there has to be a different cause.

Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/co2-does-not-drive-glacial-cycles/

[wyly]

I wouldn't say I subscribe to it but there is certainly some compelling evidence that it might be so. Thank you for mentioning Anthony Watts so much recently - I hadn't really paid much attention to him but I've been looking at his website recently and a guest writer (denier blogger to you) put together a good summary of the sceticism about the "CO2 lagging temperature" issue.

Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/co2-does-not-drive-glacial-cycles/

which we have to ask why is CO2 now leading temp without a previous warming where is the lag????

CO2 can be driven by temp and CO2 can also drive temp...

what the denier world can't comprehend is the Ice Core samples verify is something different is happening now, warming and cooling cycles can happen for a number of reasons...Mega volcano's, Meteor/comet strikes, Milankovitch cycles and.... GHG's

Edited March 11, 2010 by wyly

[Bonam]

NONE...100%...take it to the bank...as sure as the sun as is the center of our galaxy anthropological GHG's are causing this current warming trend...the only questions remaining to be answered are "how fast it will occur", "what will be the damage", "can it be slowed or reversed"

The Sun is NOT the center of our galaxy...

[bush_cheney2004]

The Sun is NOT the center of our galaxy...

Good on ya....somebody has to keep these CO₂ warmed knuckleheads in line.

[jbg]

should we wait to read your, or Simple's explanations on how the natural variability aspects of PDO, La Nina, El Nino... account for global warming?

Yes, natural variability has a lot to do with it. Or are you one who contends that the earth stands still and nothing has changed for millenia?

[waldo]

Good on ya....somebody has to keep these CO₂ warmed knuckleheads in line.

be afraid... be very afraid!

[waldo]

should we wait to read your, or Simple's explanations on how the natural variability aspects of PDO, La Nina, El Nino... account for global warming?

Yes, natural variability has a lot to do with it. Or are you one who contends that the earth stands still and nothing has changed for millenia?

of course, natural internal processes (like an El Nino cycle) cause variations in the Earth's climate over time... however, none of the natural internal processes... or any of the external influences (natural or caused by human activity (other than CO2))... can account for the current global warming. (I'm not clear how your second sentence relates to your first, particularly in the context of, "accounting for global warming").

[waldo]

look, I'm truly questioning whether I should have highlighted your contradiction with Essenhigh... sigh... if only you could pick and choose the denier nuggets from your rogues gallery of deniers. In any case, you seem to have skipped right over the post where I mentioned Essenhigh's complete failure in accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus... the physical basis on the driver relationship between CO2 and temperature. Like I said, you get the bundled best with Essenhigh. Perhaps we need to qualify the position you presume to hold... the one you won't provide any scientific foundations for:

do you also subscribe to the Essenhigh position that temperature drives CO2?

I wouldn't say I subscribe to it but there is certainly some compelling evidence that it might be so. Thank you for mentioning Anthony Watts so much recently - I hadn't really paid much attention to him but I've been looking at his website recently and a guest writer (denier blogger to you) put together a good summary of the sceticism about the "CO2 lagging temperature" issue.

please, don't shy away from Watts now... just when his (and D'Aleo's) central claims/charges in their SPPI nonsense are being totally debunked. Since you've been all about questioning the reliability of the surface temperature records, about UHI, about declining surface station numbers... each of which is principal to Watts' surfacestations.org "project" (and SPPI)... you can suggest you're not a Watts devotee - I ain't buyin it

if you don't categorically subscribe to Essenhigh's claim that 'temperature drives CO2'... that the increased, and increasing CO2 levels of today... are caused by temperature rise - then you are being selective in choosing your denier nuggets. You will pick Essenhigh's claims about CO2 residence time, but apparently not his claims concerning temperature driving CO2. That's fine, except the contradictions obviously arise when Essenhigh links his argument together, and you choose to deconstruct it by mining for that one particular denier nugget of his you like.

as for your guest bloggers expertise, does your referencing it presuppose that we're... now... coming out of an ice age? Is that your substantiation for today's current and rising CO2 level? (/snarc)