Bet you're a Taurus.

Apr 6, 2018 at 12:22 PM | Phil Clarke

Are you retraining in something more scientific than Climate Science?

Phil Clarke

"Bet you're a Taurus.

Apr 6, 2018 at 12:22 PM | Phil Clarke"

It would explains why golf Charlie writes so much bullshit.

Apr 6, 2018 at 6:27 PM | Entropic man

Do you still agree with the Consensus range of values for ECS?

Why do you still accept Mann's Hockey Stick?

Why do you deny that Climate Science has made any mistakes?

It would explains why golf Charlie writes so much bullshit.

Apr 6, 2018 at 6:27 PM | Entropic man

Would you care to elaborate?

If Climate Science understood honesty, Mann's Hockey Stick would never have passed Peer Review 20 years ago. "You" have been living a lie ever since, and continue to deny it.

Well, EM, climate science is the lowest form of Astrology. It is Cancer every month of the year.

EM, 97% of Climate Scientists have never found anything wrong with Peer Reviewed Climate Science.

Why should 97% of Climate Science be trusted to be honest about anything?

Golf Charlie

Yes,and being a good sceptic I have checked some of the calculated values myself.

How many ECS values have you calculated?

Yes. The paleo values have been replicated repeatedly by other workers and the uptick confirmed by direct measurement.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

If NASA GISS can't be honest with money, should they be trusted with Climate Science?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/06/nasa-giss-gets-slammed-in-inspector-general-report-for-questionable-1-63-million-of-giss-expenditures-since-2012/

Entropic Man & Phil Clarke
Do you have any evidence based on reliable science, backed up by real observations to support your ideas about ECS?

http://notrickszone.com/2018/04/06/top-climate-scientist-co2-model-assumptions-invalid-natural-climatic-variations-dominate/#sthash.CjHunWCO.dpbs

Sea level rise projections overblown

Concerning global sea level rise, Prof. Humlum believes the planet will see only “8-15 cm rise by the year 2100”. And though most scientists agree man is warming the planet through CO2 emissions by burning fossil fuels, Prof. Humlum wrote that the figure for CO2 climate sensitivity is completely in dispute.

Natural factors at play, modest cooling ahead

On what has driven the climate change observed over the past 40 years, Prof. Humlum wrote that it goes far beyond just CO2 and that the sun, clouds and oceans have played huge roles. Over the coming decades he thinks the planet will cool, but that “it won’t be dramatic”.

Concerning whether the 20th century warming has led to more weather extremes today, he answered: “No, not according to statistics known by me.”

“Natural climatic variations dominate”

He summarized:

On the global scale natural climatic variations dominate over effects caused by man. Climate models often claim to incorporate natural variations, but this is not correct, as can be shown by statistical analyses. Thus, the argument that only by assuming a large effect of CO2 can climate models reproduce global climate change since 1950 is invalid.”

Golf Charlie

You seem to worship pseudoscience sites like WUWT and notrickszone.

They are not reliable sources of information.

Golf Charlie

Consider this post

http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/17/swiss-physicist-concludes-ipcc-assumptions-violate-reality-co2-a-very-weak-greenhouse-gas/#sthash.v7etcevb.U6QyZvOW.dpbs

And this review of the same paper by an astrophysicist.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/infrared-absorption-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

Apr 7, 2018 at 9:29 AM | Entropic man

You worship Mann's Hockey Stick

Your problem, figure it out for yourself.

As a Country Bumpkin, observations keep trouncing failed Climate Science Theory. Why don't you check your own emissions for bullsh¡t?

Now Mann has landed you with Harvey et al 2017, and you still cannot detect any failures in Climate Science?

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/infrared-absorption-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

Apr 7, 2018 at 9:36 AM | Entropic man

Consider the astrophysicists exposure here:
https://cliscep.com/2018/04/01/climate-izzums-and-schizzums/

where his use of censorship is raised (again) It seems to be the standard modus operandi, as Peer Reviewed by 97% of Climate Scientists, and their unreliable blogs. See Harvey et al 2017 for details.

I've been spending a little time over at NTZ, but now disengaged. They censor posts and ban links to any site, such as RealClimate that might introduce some actual science into their collective, consensual delusion.

Here are some of the tricks regularly deployed at the No Tricks Zone:

- Confuse local, regional and global. Here the pretence is that global warming means the whole globe is warming uniformly everywhere. In fact as the amount of energy in the climate system increases and patterns of heat distribution - winds and ocean currents - change, some regions may flatline or even cool as the globe warms, on average.

What NTZ does is scan the literature for proxy reconstructions from a region or locality that shows little or no warming, carefully extract a graph (sometimes one out of several where the others show warming), post the standalone graph with a caption 'No Warming in ' <much larger area>'. So a single island is used to indicate 'No warming in the West Pacific', a small wood to indicate 'No warming in Pakistan' and so on. By posting a long list of these (he claims to have hundreds) the reader is invited to join the dots and conclude 'No warming anywhere'. It’s a variation on the Gish Gallop, they never post a link to the paper, so to check one has to hunt it down from the name, check one has the right version and see what the paper actually says. Often it is nothing to do with temperature; the West Pacific study was on oceanic pH, (it acknowledges the effect of anthropogenic CO2 btw) and included a graph of historical SSTs. These data were from the Reynolds dataset, which globally shows unequivocal warming. Textbook cherry-pick. The study they use to prove 'No warming in Central Canada (Viau and Gajewski) says the exact opposite in the text

“Our results show that at no time during the Holocene have millennial-scale temperature variations exceeded 10.78C in boreal Canada (Table 1). These results therefore show that presently observed temperature increases in northern Canada far exceed natural variability found in this study (Solomon et al. 2007), providing paleoclimatic support for human cause of the presentday global warming.”

Which I found amusing. For Spain, NTZ cherry-pick from Abrantes et al a chart which was actually a plot of data from completely different study, one which concluded GW, the NTZ article was included in a post on Breitbart (another reliable source), and in a response on the Climate Feedback blog, Abrantes herself wrote:

As anyone well informed certainly knows, an average climate warming does not at all mean that every region in the world will warm at the same rate. In fact the impact of such warmth on the atmosphere and in the surface ocean waters causes changes in the atmospheric and oceanic circulation which will have different impacts on different regions. The article on Breibart.com is so bad that the author did not even realize that the figure extracted from my paper is not my new data record but the record of the northern Spain atmospheric temperature anomaly, produced by Martín-Chivelet et al., (2011) that I have used for comparison. Indeed, my paper proves that while in the NW Iberian margin Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) during the 20th century were similar to the Medieval Warm Period ones, in the Algarve region SST shows a general increase of about 2 ºC in the last 50 years. Such results agree with both the global and regional projections that indicate this region of Europe with highest potential vulnerability in regard to current global warming (Climate, 2011).

- Fatima Abrantes, 

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-misrepresents-research-58-scientific-papers-falsely-claim-disprove-human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/

In fact more often than not the NTZ authors think they know the conclusions of a study better than the authors. In one case they presented a graph of detrended temperature data to um, prove the absence of a trend.

- Straw Man arguments. The original Mann Bradley Hughes (MBH) 1998 'hockey stick' study went back to AD1400, MBH99 extended this to AD1000. PAGES 2K goes back 2,000 years and the period to AD1000 confirms MBH99. The abstract of Mann et al 2008 reads

Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. 

NTZ dissents and presents as evidence - the Holocene Optimum, 9,000 years ago.

- Junk and fringe science. They love Fleming 2018, a collection of long discredited myths that can be debunked by a visit to Skeptical Science and which quotes approvingly the work of astrologer Theodor Landscheidt.

On climate, NTZ is the ultimate fake news.

Consider the astrophysicists exposure here:

You are confusing Tamino, a professional statistician based in the US, with And Then There's Physics, which is authored by an astrophysicist employed at the University of Edinburgh. They are psuedonymous, but their identities are pretty well known, indeed Anthony Watts delights in 'outing' them whenever he gets the opportunity.

Apr 7, 2018 at 12:08 PM | Phil Clarke

The confusion is on your part, though they both seem incapable of accepting any defects in Climate Science.

As ECS and TCR are featuring a bit recently:

https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/26/taminos-adjusted-temperature-records-and-the-tcr/

Nic Lewis and Judith Curry seem to have been ostracised by the Hockey Team faithfuls, because they have been trying to identify the problems enshrined within Consensus Climate Science. The Consensus still pretends there is nothing wrong, when they have not yet proved that manmade CO2 has any significant effect on climate at all.

Climate Science is unsustainable for Taxpayers, but Climate Scientists are welcome to continue at their own expense.

Apr 7, 2018 at 11:52 AM | Phil Clarke

Fake Climate Science really got going with Mann's Hockey Stick. What has Climate Science, including "Tamino" and "aTTP" done to correct it?

That is why Harvey et al 2017 is proving so useful to Scott Pruitt at the US EPA.

Apr 7, 2018 at 12:10 PM | Radical Rodent

Have you noticed that Climate Science is unable to confirm the reliability of Mann's Hockey Stick?

Astrophysicists can't admit mistakes either:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/gergis/

GC

In your own words, what is wrong with Gergis, as updated?

And what impact do the flaws (if any), have on our understanding of global climate change? Again, in your own words, please.

My answer would be that the alleged problems have been overblown, the basic conclusions are sound, and that in any case we have sufficient other corroborating studies (eg Neukom et al) such that Gergis is useful, but not essential to our understanding.

Quiz Question.

Q. Who believes that proxy reconstructions, such as the Mann Hockey Stick are interesting but …

somewhat tangential to the large policy issues

A It's the Auditor!

While there is much to criticize in the handling of this data by the authors and the journals, the results do not in any way show that “AGW is a fraud” nor that this particular study was a “fraud”.

There are many serious scientists who are honestly concerned about AGW and your commentary here is unfair to them.

In retrospect, the “hockey stick” studies that I’ve criticized have been used by climate scientists, journals and IPCC to promote concern, but the most important outstanding scientific issue appears to me to be the amount of “water cycle” feedback, including clouds as well as water vapor. This controls the “climate sensitivity” to increased CO2.

In my opinion, scientific journals reporting on climate and IPCC would serve the interested public far better if they focused on articulating these issues to the scientific public at a professional level than by repeatedly recycling and promoting some highly questionable proxy studies that deal with an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues.

Comment by S. McIntyre on the Spectator blog, after Melanie Phillips went nuts.

https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/26/unthreaded-n/

Apr 7, 2018 at 9:30 PM | Phil Clarke or is that aTTP?
Why should I take instructions from you? You tell us what made you state that Gergis proved Mann's Hockey Stick.

Gergis was flawed first time around, twiddled a few bits re-released it, and it was still flawed. What do you think Gergis proved? It proves to me that Climate Science Peer Review is not working.

Climate Science has had 20 years to prove Mann's Hockey Stick and Gergis was another failure. Climate Science is welcome to keep trying, but not at taxpayers expense.

Is aTTP now prepared to state what he really thinks of Mann's Hockey Stick? Some of his work colleagues would love to know.

Radical rodent

I doubt much will happen next week.

This from spaceweather.com.

"A wide hole in the sun's atmosphere is facing Earth and spewing a stream of solar wind toward our planet. Estimated time of arrival: April 9th. Minor G1-class magnetic storms are possible next week when the gaseous material reaches Earth. "

"... than by repeatedly recycling and promoting some highly questionable proxy studies that deal with an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues."

Comment by S. McIntyre on the Spectator blog, after Melanie Phillips went nuts.

https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/26/unthreaded-n/

Apr 7, 2018 at 10:04 PM | Phil Clarke

Which bit did you not read? Does he mean Mann, and all those others, who have "proved" Mann, including Gergis?

If you want to read more from S McIntyre, why not search his blog for posts regarding Mann and Gergis etc?

How disengaging of you considering you never engaged in the first place

I've been spending a little time over at NTZ, but now disengaged.

Bullshit!

https://screenshots.firefox.com/9s0cXAmX4SEZ5zmx/notrickszone.com