Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

....receive no answer.

if you are gonna appeal to a crazed alarmist for your data, it would stand to reason that you agree with their analysis? eh? should we leave half of the rest of the oil in the ground? the science is there, right?

this is exactly what the other religious kooks say when i deny that their kooky myths. and the exact same factors are involved. humans do not like to admit ignorance, and they like to write themselves into every story.

there are lots of questions we do not have answers for. my lack of answers doesnt make your any more likely to be right. if you dont think humans have a history of doing exactly this, of filling in the blanks of their knowledge with self-aggrandizing myth, then you havent been paying attention

 

Jo Nova finds the Medieval Warm Period Watts Up With That?



Not to mention there have been serious errors found in Mann's Hockey Stick, which is where "mike's nature trick" used to "hide the decline" comes from.

there is a great article at the american thinker

 

Huh? Future temperatures don't matter? Then why does anyone care about AGW? Clarify?

Huh? If we don't care what temperatures are in the future, then why do we care how much it's changing?

I dont' think this is what you meant ...however... In the hacked RAW station temperature data, one can see that temperatures rose at faster rates at many global locations in the 1940s than they have in last so-called hottest decade on record. They also retreated almost as quickly over the following decade... eeriely similar to what we've seen since 2001. Extrapolating the current rate of the previous two decades (less the last 8-years) over an entire century is not science. It's not even a good guess. The "40s Blip" tells us that.

That's a convient definition for climate folks. It gives them leave to ignore weather. But semantics don't validate their theory. ... those "chaotic conditions" transfer significant amounts of heat out of the atmosphere and cannot be ignored.

There's a reason meterologists are among the most vocal dissenters of AGW. They can follow the heat balance... Think how much energy it takes to a/c a house. Now think about cooling half of a continent like Friday's cold front. That takes a massive quantity of heat transfer. We know it exists because we observe it. We observe that weather transfers heat on the order of 10s of degrees over a day.

Even if one believes the AGW evangelists... They theorize a heat differential of 2 degrees over a century. Even globally distributed ... that is a piddly amount of added heat compared to the heat a single cold front or hurricane transfers out of the atmosphere.

What's is a negligable amount of heat transfer: weather or AGW? Ultimately, weather will have a far, far greater influence on what the temperature will be at any given future timescale than global warming will.

The only alternative is to make an argument that weather has no significant effect on surface and atmospheric temperatures. To deny weather's effect on temperature we'd have to ignore what we observe in exchange for belief in a "theory". It's the ultimate "ignore the man behind the curtain" argument.

Let's be fair. I'm sure that was tongue-in-cheek as anything else. If he intended it as proof of a trend, well... He can clarify if he wishes. However, his comment does serve to put things in perspective about which will have a greater influence - weather or AGW?

First, weather variances are ignored by virtue of the time scale. Google nyquist frequency. Energy fluctuates in our atmosphere on the order of hours... not decades or centuries. All of that detail is lost in the timescale. Nor can you "average" it out. Way too noisy and stochastic of a signal.

It the equivalent of saying the Dow was at 6,000 in March, and it's 10,000 today... Therefore, no one lost money in the stock market between March and now. I'm proof that's not true! :lol:

Beyond that... climate models have a false appearance of accuracy because they dismiss the energy outflows due to stochastic weather... when we include weather's effects we can't accurately predict temperatures out more than about 14 days with any useable accuracy. But somehow climate models are +/- 2 degrees over a centruy? Only by failing to account for weather effects.

This is why... by their own admission in the hacked emails... climatologists can't balance the energy in their models as the atmosphere temperatures cooled over the last 8 years. Their models can only predict warming, because they ignore the atmosphere's primary method of heat rejection -weather. It's a thermodynamic mistake. Pure and simple.

 

Whether you choose to accept it or not, your "evidence" is tainted and highly suspect.

 

If you don't extrapolate the rate out why should it cause for concern? We've observed greater rates of change mid-20th century.

Wrong (Bolding mine) You're thinking in two dimensions. Weather transferrs heat vertically as well. When water evaporates at the surface it absorbs heat. Heated air rises - observable by watching hawks, or flying in a light aircraft on a hot summer day! Heated air rises to the upper atmosphere where it condenses (into rain) and releases the heat absorbed at the surface.

Because space is a h*ll of a lot colder than earth's surface is warm, water vapor holds an order of magnitude more heat than air, and clouds are lighter in color than the earth, it's not a zero-sum. We radiate heat from clouds far more effeciently than we ever could directly from the earth's surface. IOW we have the capacity to lose more heat via clouds than the earth has to store heat at the surface.

Further... cold air is more dense. A cross section of a cold front shows it forms a wedge. With an opposing wind blowing hot air over a cold front, warmer air at the surface is uplifted. This is why it rains in front of a cold front... it also transfers heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere to space.

Hurricanes... same concept. Summer popup showers... same concept.

None of this heat transport can be accounted for without accounting for ... weather.

Not to mention that high altitude clouds block the sunlight. CO2 without does not, cannot, will not cause warming without sunlight. Unpossible.

I am not a fish, but it doesn't mean I can't swim.

Which is the funamental thermodynamic flaw in the theory. We observe that weather has the capacity to remove more heat from the earth's surface than global warming has to add to it. How can it be that a smaller amount of heat is driving a larger amount of heat?

Ummm... No study required. Sophomore-level thermodynamics. Temperature * heat capacity = energy. If the temperature changes by 10deg due to weather compared to 2deg by GW, it's 5x the energy.

Another fundamental AGW flaw. CO2 (at constant pressure) cannot create, store, or transfer heat. Zero. Heat can only come to the atmosphere via the sun. So why are we seeing the greatest effects where sunlight is the least? That makes no sense. We should see the first and greatest effects at the mid lattitudes.

No you cannot if the effects are significant. Does an MP3 sound the same when sampled at 22.1kHz, 44.1kHz, 128kHz, 192kHz? Of course not. Sampled and smoothed at a rate below the maximum frequency drops detail. Ever hear of an MP3 sampled at 11kHz. It would be unintelligible to the human ear, because the "artifacts" are removed.

You can smooth continuous and regular functions to remove outliers. Certainly. But clearly weather is not a smooth continuous function. You describe it as chaotic. Agreed. Further, the greatest amounts of energy are transferred during the outliers. A hurricane would be an outlying condition... lost in a statistical "smoothing" but is one of the greatest transferrers (?) of heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere.

Think of it like this. If I ride my bike for a closed loop in the mountains... my net altitude gain is zero. But I can assure you... you will feel the effects of each and every peak when you are pedaling. You will have climbed many feet, And the amount of calories you burn will reflect that.

Well... which way is it. Is it about weather or not? "Climatologists" want to claim it when it suits their dogma and dismiss it when it doesn't.

 

i didnt put those things in your mouth, that was your link!

i asked if two degrees change is devastating, this is the issue. so you linked that guy explaining why two degrees matters. but you dont trust anything else he says?

you cant just have these beliefs in a vacuum. if you believe this, there are ramifications. if you believe that 2 degrees is devastating, then we must do something drastic, right?