Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[UV-RAY]

I assume you have just awoken from a comatose state as the subject has been discussed in fair detail on here ad infinitum, and in greater detail in various scientific papers such as for example the one above. To none of which do you have the courtesy to offer any semblance of scientific rebuttal but just resort to the same old mantra. I've met many closed minds before but never one that is hermetically sealed.

 

P.S. If you think the drivel from the Watts blog comes under the category of scientific opinion then that explains all.

And yet not one scientific explanation can really explain the pause, the PDO most certainly not as that only went negative in September 2007. The plain truth is that not one climate scientist saw it coming an yet now hundreds with hindsight can explain it away with bad science.

 

The onus isn't on me to explain to millions of taxpayers as  to why the warnings were wrong, that should be up to your lot. Still playing lets find the missing heat content should keep you lot occupied for at least another decade.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

Why is so much time and energy spent finding snippets about a blog writer?

He doesn't even write the great majority of stuff there.

Seems disturbingly like stalking.

 

Unrequited love.

[UV-RAY]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-44#entry2859081Perhaps then the you could do us the courtesy of explaining what you find scientifically dubious about the Trenberth and Fasullo paper If you need any help I'm sure Four will be only too happy to oblige.it concludes:The PDO is essentially a natural mode of variability, although there are questions about how it is affectedby the warming climate, and so the plateau in warming is not because global warming has ceased. Theevidence supports continued heating of the climate system as manifested by melting of Arctic sea iceand glaciers, as well as Greenland, but most of the heat is going into the oceans and increasingly intothe deep ocean, and thus contributes to sea-level rise. The analysis in this article does not suggest thatglobal warming has disappeared; on the contrary, it is very much alive but being manifested in somewhatdifferent ways than a simple increase in global mean surface temperature.Another one of your famous non sequiturs of which you seem to have an endless supply. And actually the models did cover this, but that's by-the bye, the onus is on you to at least attempt some form of scientific reasoning when deriding scientists who know somewhat more than you on the subject. Quite frankly your feeble attempts to justify an entrenched ideology would make a primary school debating society look like the Oxford Union.

Simple if we are going to attribute the pause with the PDO then we also have to utilise its warming influence also. There's no deriding there just simple facts, I realise that it maybe hard to grasp for some but you cannot include one natural driver as and when it suites. Now you've put all of your toys back in your pram have you actually anything worthwhile too say, or is your argument based on your inability to converse with sceptics without the constant trolling and posts about Watts and co. Edited December 10, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

If you wish to converse in a sensible and scientific way then may I suggest we do it elsewhere as this thread isn't for this.

[UV-RAY]

That constitutes a criticism of the paper does it? Give me strength.

 

Just from the abstract. Note the PDO went negative in 1999 not 2007.[/quoteIt didn't it was September 2007 before it was officially declared negative.

[UV-RAY]

Here we go.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/the-pacific-decadal-oscillation/

[UV-RAY]

I think one of the main reasons of conflict  with regards to the pause is that too many are trying to attach a reason for this without any evidence and for me that's what makes the whole debate fascinating, as none of us know where we are heading and so all we can offer is at best, a guesstimate. For anyone claiming to know otherwise is at worst a fabricator of stories or simply deliberately misleading, I certainly don't know whether global temps will rise or fall but one way or another we will find out and that's going to make those who proclaim to know the future look rather foolish I would imagine.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[knocker]

That constitutes a criticism of the paper does it? Give me strength.

 

Just from the abstract. Note the PDO went negative in 1999 not 2007.[/quoteIt didn't it was September 2007 before it was officially declared negative.

 

Are you saying then the paper is invalid, or at the very least, scientifically dubious. because in your opinion the PDO wasn't in a negative phase in 1999?

 

What Roy Spencer says is not very specific in that he doesn't attempt to indicate when the negative phase started, just we have entered...........

 

 

And now, as of late 2008, it looks like we might have entered into a new, negative (cooling) phase of the PDO. Only time will tell whether this pattern persists.

[UV-RAY]

http://forum.netweat...44#entry2859180

 

Well compared to the "it's behind you theory" hidden in the oceans then that's just as good a guess. But my own personal opinion is that we have just overestimated CO2  and underestimated natural forcings, or maybe that's to simplistic for some eh!

Are you saying then the paper is invalid, or at the very least, scientifically dubious. because in your opinion the PDO wasn't in a negative phase in 1999?

 

What Roy Spencer says is not very specific in that he doesn't attempt to indicate when the negative phase started, just we have entered...........

Yes because prior to that we had a couple of years of a cool phase before it switched back to a warmer phase. You sometimes see these small fluctuations prior to a longer term switch.

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweat...44#entry2859180

 

Well compared to the "it's behind you theory" hidden in the oceans then that's just as good a guess. But my own personal opinion is that we have just overestimated CO2  and underestimated natural forcings, or maybe that's to simplistic for some eh!

 

Or any possible combination of those? 

[keithlucky]

Were is the warming?global sea ice 3rd higest amount ever recorded http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008

[VillagePlank]

Not much makes me laugh out-loud, but this did - inspired in part from here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/09/pathological-altruism/#more-13983

 

Link to actual paper: http://www.bethseeligmd.com/resources/pdf/bjseelig_Am-Psychoanal-Assoc-2001-Seelig-933-59.pdf

 

J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2001 Summer;49(3):933-59.

Normal and pathological altruism.

Seelig BJ, Rosof LS.

Source

Psychoanalytic Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30306, USA. Bseelig@learnlink.emory.edu

Abstract

The psychoanalytic literature on altruism is sparse, although much has been written on this topic from a sociobiological perspective. Freud (1917) first described the concept in "Libido Theory and Narcissism." In 1946 Anna Freud coined the term "altruistic surrender" to describe the psychodynamics of altruistic behavior in a group of inhibited individuals who were neurotically driven to do good for others. The usefulness and clinical applicability of this formulation, in conjunction with the frequent coexistence of masochism and altruism, encouraged psychoanalysts to regard all forms of altruism as having masochistic underpinnings. Since then, there has been a conflation of the two concepts in much of the analytic literature. This paper reexamines the psychoanalytic understanding of altruism and proposes an expansion of the concept to include a normal form. Five types of altruism are described: protoaltruism, generative altruism, conflicted altruism, pseudoaltruism, and psychotic altruism. Protoaltruism has biological roots and can be observed in animals. In humans, protoaltruism includes maternal and paternal nurturing and protectiveness. Generative altruism is the nonconflictual pleasure in fostering the success and/or welfare of another. Conflicted altruism is generative altruism that is drawn into conflict, but in which the pleasure and satisfaction of another (a proxy) is actually enjoyed. Pseudoaltruism originates in conflict and serves as a defensive cloak for underlying sadomasochism. Psychotic altruism is defined as the sometimes bizarre forms of caretaking behavior and associated self-denial seen in psychotic individuals, and often based on delusion. We consider Anna Freud's altruistic surrender to combine features of both conflict-laden altruism and pseudoaltruism. Two clinical illustrations are discussed.

 

Edited December 10, 2013 by Sparkicle

[UV-RAY]

Lol, I present evidence as to when the PDO switched but the goalposts get moved because it doesn't back up the theory of using oceanic heat diatribution as the cause of the pause. The only proof we will get is real time observational from the here and now, so it's a case of watch this space and keep an eye out on those surface temps over the coming years as that's where we'll see any changes a coming.

[UV-RAY]

Good article on climate modelling.

 

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/25/reflection-on-reliability-of-climate-models/

[keithlucky]

Almost the entire USA frozen solid

Edited December 10, 2013 by keithlucky

[UV-RAY]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/?p=2859340

 

Lol, but it's still ok to label us as climate misleaders, or maybe you couldn't read my post correctly due to the blinkers you  was wearing?

 

Or how about, "yes SI I don't approve of such labelling, but how do you feel with regards to this comment".

Edited December 10, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

ic/76585-manmade-climate-change-discussion/?p=2859340

 

Yes I don't approve of such posts and were have I said I do? 

 

I'm all for humorous replies as sometimes the debate can and  does get heated, failing that a PM works wonders as I found with BFTV. Maybe we need to clarify when we are being humorous just to avoid further unnecessary conflict, as emotions do run high at times.

[keithlucky]

What would the scaremongers the Global alarmists say if this was reversed?

Edited December 10, 2013 by keithlucky

[VillagePlank]

Nobel prize winner boycotts top journals - saying they distort science

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

 

And, of course, Peter Higgs isn't 'productive enough' to work in universities,

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system

Edited December 11, 2013 by Sparkicle

[stewfox]

Nobel prize winner boycotts top journals - saying they distort science

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

 

And, of course, Peter Higgs isn't 'productive enough' to work in universities,

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system

 

Good find , does make you wonder in a wider forum.

 

At the end of the day publishers are there to sell even if its peer reviewed scientific submissions.

 

You are going to sell something a lot easier with a title ' Africa to burn for the next 50 years due to Global warming' then with a title  'no significant evidence found all is well etc'

Edited December 11, 2013 by stewfox

[knocker]

I remember this case.

 

 

South Korean experts have previously cloned animals including a cow, a cat, dogs, a pig and a wolf. The cloned wolf died in 2009.

 

Hwang shot to fame in 2004 when he published a paper in the US journal Science claiming to have created the world's first stem-cell line from a cloned human embryo.

 

But his reputation was tarnished in November 2005 by allegations that he had violated medical ethics by accepting human eggs from his own researchers.

 

In January 2006 an investigative team ruled that his findings were faked and said he had produced no stem cells of any kind.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gbFKWdU-XIzyGmBPeSdQllAlCXyA?docId=CNG.ce88761a8c2baeac46f69c7a8623d206.771

[keithlucky]

 Man made Global warming brings heaviest snow for 60yrs to Jerusalem http://t.co/r0zLo99CLA

[jonboy]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2860709

 

More weather. Mild here isn't it?

 

But not mildest in 60 years is it!!!!

[UV-RAY]

But not mildest in 60 years is it!!!!

If it was it would be plastered all over the news as evidence for AGW and a poster on here would certainly be pounding his chest and licking his lips.

[UV-RAY]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-45#entry2861004 I would have thought it most unlikely anyone will deign to reply as the post from Kl should be in the extreme weather worldwide thread. it's quite careless to mix them up.

Oh I agree any weather related stories should be knocker, but how many stories regarding storms, heatwaves and droughts get the "it's down to AGW" treatment. Remember some were trying to pass St Jude's storm on just that , but luckily the MetO came out and squashed that.