Pekka

A side question:

Whodat “we”?

Max

Yes, an analog model of the earth with wind, CO2, water surfaces, deserts, vegetation, snow-cover, sea-ice, atmospheric and ocean circulations, aerosols and clouds. What could be simpler?

This is about integrity. Who do you believe? Who c an you trust?

Bart R posted a comment with many unsubstantiated assertions attacking Lomborg here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/24/congressional-hearing-rescheduled-2/#comment-315561

I asked for substantiation for the assertions or withdrawal here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/24/congressional-hearing-rescheduled-2/#comment-315656

Bart R then posted a number of comments in which he avoided avoid addressing the issue (the request for substantiation of his assertions, obfuscating, misrepresenting..

So, to try to get him to substantiate the first assertion first. He wouldn’t do that and continued with obfuscation, avoidance, misrepresentation.

Then Willard joined in to defend his comrade using the diversionary tactic of asking what is the pile of unsubstantiated comments and wants an answer to that before the substantiation for the first unsubstantiated assertion is addressed. Willard said: “Thanks, Peter Lang. That’s one. I want the whole pile. Please continue. Remember: the whole pile.” This is an example of the sort of devious and dishonest tricks and game playing the CAGW doom-sayers have stooped to. They were probably always like this, but it is really becoming exposed now.

So as not to leave Willard’s request for the ‘pile of Bart R’s unsubstantiated assertions’ unanswered, here it is (capitals are mine)

One would hope were these actually the most important issues, Dr. (of Public Administration) Lomborg of Denmark would want to get his facts right, so we know he would appreciate being informed of some glaring errors and omissions in his prepared notes (NONE OF WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIATED BY BART R’s RANT BELOW).

1. Dr. Nordhaus has specifically, pointedly and emphatically asserted in public that Dr. Lomborg’s use of DICE is incorrect, (UNSUBSTANTIATED) that the claims of current net benefits are completely false, and that Dr. Lomborg is attempting to apply principles of cost-benefit analyses with inappropriate tools (UNSUBSTANTIATED). As Dr. Nordhaus crafted the tools, one would hope Dr. Lomborg has by now made appropriate adjustments to his notes and won’t be in the position of committing scientific fraud (UNSUBSTANTIATED) (Economics is still a science, right?) in front of a committee of Congress.

2. Dr. Lomborg’s remarks about carbon tax are wildly inaccurate (UNSUBSTANTIATED). We have seen the exact opposite of what he asserts wherever carbon taxes have been implemented (UNSUBSTANTIATED), and Dr. Lomborg ought, as a Dr. of Public Administration, know this. Further, Dr. Lomborg specifically excludes from his examination the most relevant models of pricing carbon (BIASED PERSONAL OPINION), those currently being studied by lawmakers in the USA, of fee and dividend (NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY), which will have all the benefits these notes say do not exist (UNSUBSTANTIATED), and not a single one of the drawbacks (UNSUBSTANTIATED). One is certain Dr. Lomborg would want a chance to correct these mistakes before speaking in the morning.

3. Dr. Lomborg’s managed-economy conclusions might apply to a tiny state like Cuba or Denmark with a long history of Communism or Socialism and a taste for tyrannical control of all decisions by a politburo, but for America, one must believe the values enshrined in the US Constitution would make his recommendations antithetical. Also, they’re by far the most expensive and least effectual proposals anyone has seriously set forward (UNSUBSTANTIATED). One hopes Dr. Lomborg does not commit this faux pas.

What a rant. And how disreputable to then try to defend it instead of withdrawing it an admitting it was just a release of bile.

What is worse is that the dishonesty of Bart R and then Willard’s support. They tried to defend the indefensible. They are not the only ones that practice seriously dishonest behaviour in trying to defend their beliefs in their doomsday cult. It has become common practice by the CAGW doomsayers to misrepresent, to obfuscate, to avoid answering direct questions with direct honest answers and to try to defend indefensible behaviour. I interpret it as an indication of how the whole CAGW religion is dying.

I never cease being amazed at how unethical and dishonest are many of the people defending the CAGW doomsayer belief.

The Donoho quote. Good on you.

Agree with Jim. The assumption has to be made up front, and if it is incorrect, the wntire argument is moot.

Consider instead any stable system controlled by negative feedback. (eg an air-conditioned room or a fridge) Within the bounds of parameters for which the system is designed, any change in “forcing” (opening doors or adding heat sources) does not result in anything much apart from a transient change which is corrected by the system.

Earth is well within CO2 levels of history. Earth is still here and so are humans.

If the phenomenon is that of radiative thermal equilibrium of a body with the sun, then I have not seen any idea that temperature is dependent on *any* other property of the body excepting reflectance.

Sorry, repost with fixed formatting:

This is about integrity. Who do you believe? Who can you trust?

Bart R posted a comment with many unsubstantiated assertions attacking Lomborg here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/24/congressional-hearing-rescheduled-2/#comment-315561

I asked for substantiation for the assertions or withdrawal here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/24/congressional-hearing-rescheduled-2/#comment-315656

Bart R then posted a number of comments in which he avoided avoid addressing the issue (the request for substantiation of his assertions, obfuscating, misrepresenting..

So, to try to get him to substantiate the first assertion first. He wouldn’t do that and continued with obfuscation, avoidance, misrepresentation.

Then Willard joined in to defend his comrade using the diversionary tactic of asking what is the pile of unsubstantiated comments and wants an answer to that before the substantiation for the first unsubstantiated assertion is addressed. Willard said: “Thanks, Peter Lang. That’s one. I want the whole pile. Please continue. Remember: the whole pile.” This is an example of the sort of devious and dishonest tricks and game playing the CAGW doom-sayers have stooped to. They were probably always like this, but it is really becoming exposed now.

So as not to leave Willard’s request for the ‘pile of Bart R’s unsubstantiated assertions’ unanswered, here it is (capitals are mine)

One would hope were these actually the most important issues, Dr. (of Public Administration) Lomborg of Denmark would want to get his facts right, so we know he would appreciate being informed of some glaring errors and omissions in his prepared notes (NONE OF WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIATED BY BART R’s RANT BELOW).

1. Dr. Nordhaus has specifically, pointedly and emphatically asserted in public that Dr. Lomborg’s use of DICE is incorrect, (UNSUBSTANTIATED) that the claims of current net benefits are completely false, and that Dr. Lomborg is attempting to apply principles of cost-benefit analyses with inappropriate tools (UNSUBSTANTIATED). As Dr. Nordhaus crafted the tools, one would hope Dr. Lomborg has by now made appropriate adjustments to his notes and won’t be in the position of committing scientific fraud (UNSUBSTANTIATED) (Economics is still a science, right?) in front of a committee of Congress.

2. Dr. Lomborg’s remarks about carbon tax are wildly inaccurate (UNSUBSTANTIATED). We have seen the exact opposite of what he asserts wherever carbon taxes have been implemented (UNSUBSTANTIATED), and Dr. Lomborg ought, as a Dr. of Public Administration, know this. Further, Dr. Lomborg specifically excludes from his examination the most relevant models of pricing carbon (BIASED PERSONAL OPINION), those currently being studied by lawmakers in the USA, of fee and dividend (NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY), which will have all the benefits these notes say do not exist (UNSUBSTANTIATED), and not a single one of the drawbacks (UNSUBSTANTIATED). One is certain Dr. Lomborg would want a chance to correct these mistakes before speaking in the morning.

3. Dr. Lomborg’s managed-economy conclusions might apply to a tiny state like Cuba or Denmark with a long history of Communism or Socialism and a taste for tyrannical control of all decisions by a politburo, but for America, one must believe the values enshrined in the US Constitution would make his recommendations antithetical. Also, they’re by far the most expensive and least effectual proposals anyone has seriously set forward (UNSUBSTANTIATED). One hopes Dr. Lomborg does not commit this faux pas.

What a rant. And how disreputable to then try to defend it instead of withdrawing it an admitting it was just a release of bile.

What is worse is that the dishonesty of Bart R and then Willard’s support. They tried to defend the indefensible. They are not the only ones that practice seriously dishonest behaviour in trying to defend their beliefs in their doomsday cult. It has become common practice by the CAGW doomsayers to misrepresent, to obfuscate, to avoid answering direct questions with direct honest answers and to try to defend indefensible behaviour. I interpret it as an indication of how the whole CAGW religion is dying.

I never cease being amazed at how unethical and dishonest are many of the people defending the CAGW doomsayer belief.

Peter Lang again resorts to Chewbacca’s bag of tricks:

> Bart R then posted a number of comments in which he avoided avoid addressing the issue (the request for substantiation of his assertions, obfuscating, misrepresenting..

This is unsubstantiated.

Worse than that, this is arm waving, i.e. we have no idea to what exactly does refer Peter Lang.

Even worse than that, considering Peter Lang’s newly found “pile”, reading Bart R’s comments show this is false.

***

Peter Lang decided to make this about integrity.

So be it.

INTEGRITY ™ — Damn Due Diligence.

@ Chief Hydrologist | April 27, 2013 at 7:31 pm |

It seems worth to take note of facts on the timing of the Early Arctic since winter 1981/19 for example by::
___ Johannessen, O., et al. (2004) http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/6.jpg ;
___Scherhag; R; 1936: http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/5.jpg
___H:H: Lamp , 1982: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/img/c2-p3.jpg
in detail in the U.S.A book edition: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/ (2009, pages 108)

phatboy | April 27, 2013 at 5:27 pm said: ”Jim D, Yes, you can do that for one location.But let’s say, for example, I obtain a bell curve for the past decade which shows a mean of, say 21C with a standard deviation of 2C, and you, doing the same thing for your area, come up with a mean of 12C with a stddev of 3C”

Guys, let me point to your waste of time, example: if anomaly in ”your location” small part of England or USA is 3C, BUT in my location 15 times LARGER AREA of South Pacific is 1C anomaly…. which has bigger value?

2] if anomaly shows 3C warmer for any area; that’s only for top the day temp / for the hottest minute only. it’s a fact that: when dry,days get warmer / nights get colder than normal – If you take in calculation every minute in 24h, it ‘s same as when is not drought, even tough the top temp is 3C cooler…! ONE MINUTE IN 1440 minutes (24h) is meaningless

3] advice: guys, stop playing with your little water pistols, it’ll fall off!!! Jim D, give a rest to your little water pistol, you will get blind; don’t say after that I didn’t warn you

k scott denison

Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate comments from engineers. They have an entirely different approach than scientists. Engineers are practical, pragmatic, and solution focused. Scientists are not. They will keep researching forever.

However, I don’t think we need the experiments you suggest. I think we should “get out of the cart”. We don’t need much more scientific analysis or experiment.

Instead what we need is to focus on implementing the robust policy analysis approach that JC has been advocating for a long time.

I believe we can apply it robust analysis now and if we did we would find we can have the technologies available, and economically viable, to cut global GHG emissions from fossil fuels by 50% by around 2060 and, importantly, be economically better off not worse off. More on how here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313509
and here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313514

DocMartyn | April 27, 2013 at 5:08 pm |

Exactly. No evidence for a 66 year cycle.

Or a 60 year.

Or a 72 year.

Cycles in time series where there is too little data to complete three full cycles for analysis are considered simply insufficiently sustained by data, unless the precision of the observations is so narrow as to sustain quite high confidence with a simple, unmodified, cyclic function.

What’s the confidence on GMT?

Correlation of GMT to any simple unmodified cyclic function?

Certainly, there _was_ a qualifying cycle in the GMT, for almost sixteen decades or seven complete wavelengths: the Hale cycle. That cycle could be confirmed by the method of isolates, at above 93% confidence. The problem is, the correlation vanished in the mid 1950′s.

Sure, AMO and PDO influences make their marks on the GMT curve, but: A) AMO and PDO have different nonsynchronized periods;
B) AMO and PDO influence have also become virtually undetectable for three decades.

Where your source claims, “As can be seen from the above figures, the two cycles were nearly identical..” we actually see that the two so-called “cycles” bear little resemblance whatsover, and neither is very ‘wavelike’ when smoothed, either. People see what they hope to see, in cases like this; this is why utmost skepticism ought be applied to graphical analysis of time series with suspected periodic elements.

The cycle length is approximately 62 years..

Approximately? Approximately? Kills the argument for me right there. A cycle has a fixed period. Either the proponent is suggesting there is an actual period but he can’t figure out how long it is, or there’s pseudoperiodic behavior somewhere near 62 for the two periods he thinks he sees in the data. If the former, then the proponent has no mechanical explanation for the hypothesized periodicity and is just guessing fingoistically, or the proponent has just outright admitted to no real periodicity, and nothing that can be used to mathematically describe the curve.

Wavelet analyses can be interesting, but they’re also very novel and unproven, and in particular the Copeland & Watts claim is dubious.

What we see is a pastiche of claims, some of them contradictory, for periods from 60 to 65 years, based on specious application of tools the authors appear not to understand how to use, on too little data.

Indeed the earliest literature concerned great floods that were visited upon humanity because of their sins. Great floods and cataclysms have featured in the literature of many nations from the Chinese to the grail tradition that began with the druids. There are seven stages of the grail vision ranging from a shining fish that many have seen to a vision that is profoundly secret but is accompanied by ascending physically to heaven leaving behind floods and other cataclysms.

The Dragon-Kings of the Orient controlled the waters and would punish people for theirs sins.

http://www.blackdrago.com/history/dragonkings.htm

In Norse mythology it is Ragnarök. ‘Before the end of the world, three winters without summers in between will happen in Midgard, and order will be lost in the human world. Fathers will fight their sons, siblings will commit incest, mothers will seduce their children, and brothers will tear at each other’s hearts. Midgard will be consumed with war.

The wolves Skoll and Hati will swallow the sun and moon, and the great wolf Fenris, son of Loki the trickster god, will run loose and kill Odin the All-Father, who steps forth to fight him. Odin’s son Vidar will avenge Odin by tearing Fenris apart. Thor will battle the Midgard serpent and slay him but be slain himself by the serpent’s venomous fumes. Many gods as well as all men and women save two, Lif and Lifthrasir, who seek shelter under the branches of Yggdrasil, will die. The sky will fall into a pit of flames and the earth will sink into the sea.

After the end of the world, the earth will rise renewed out of the sea and flourish. Grain will grow where no grain was sown; Lif and Lifthrasir will repeople the new world with their offspring and descendants. Odin’s sons as well as his brothers Vili and Vé will reconvene with the other surviving gods on the plain of Ida, where Asgard used to be, and hold council. They will reign over the new world as the ruling gods. So the earth was begun, and so it shall end.

My favourite recent post apocalypse read was Hunger Games – an unnamed disaster – climate related it seems – had resulted in hunger and violence culminating in the collapse of the high tech society that preceded.

Now here’s an idea for an epic song cycle.

Chief, Thanks for reminding me to post my Chylek analysis on the blog. Tamino has already done a thorough job but its always nice to have auditing substantiation.

Hey! WILLARD!

“B) AMO and PDO influence have also become virtually undetectable for three decades.”

The Neanderthals want your critique.

Willard,

I gave you what you asked for – i.e the ‘pile of unsubstantiated assertions in Bart R’s comment’

Why don’t you say:
“thank you, done; now I understand what you were referring to and now, I agree, Bart R should substantiate all of them or withdraw them. I agree with you, Peter Lang, for a start he should at least try to substantiate the first one or withdraw it and admit it was his personal opinion, not something Nordhaus said about Lomborg’s work”.

How about that Willard?

Jim D | April 24, 2013 at 12:23 am |
Jim you just don’t understand the physics of it. I am sorry I left it out, so here is the back story you need. I don’t dispute the fact that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, it does. But then you have to follow what happens next. Ferenc Miskolczi determined the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948. He found that the absorption was constant for 61 years. At the same time carbon dioxide went up by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of this much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This makes anthropogenic global warming physically impossible. To understand how this is possible, you have to know that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is there too, and there is more of it. According to Miskolczi, if several greenhouse gases simultaneously absorb radiation there exists an optimum absorption window for the atmosphere that these gases jointly maintain. If, for example, more carbon dioxide is added and it starts to absorb, the amount of water vapor must diminish in order to bring total absorption back to the optimum value. This is equivalent to negative water vapor feedback, the exact opposite of what IPCC uses. The net effect is to simply nullify the warming that the absorption of radiation by carbon dioxide would otherwise have created. That is exactly why there is no warming today and there has been none for seventeen years even though carbon dioxide is the highest it has ever been and is still increasing. A further deduction is that any past warmings alleged to have been greenhouse warmings were simply a natural warmings, misidentified. I don’t believe there is a list by IPCC that specifically identifies origins of historical warming periods, they just claim a blanket greenhouse for the century or half-century as the spirit moves them. But now there is an obligation for them to determine the origins of all known warming periods. That would be a worth while use for some of the billions of research dollars they have been collecting.

THERE ARE LESS SKEPTICS BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY MANY MANY MORE OF US UNBELIEVERS. We really don’t believe anything that has no actual real data to support it.

We have lost our doubt, now we are confident that seventeen years of forecasts of warming that did not happen is much more than enough.

this heat will one day jump out of the ocean like a Jack-in-the box

If this happened in the past ten thousand years, it may happen again and the temperatures will stay in the same range of the past ten thousand years, because that is what has happened for ten thousand years. History is the best forecast for the future.