Time for Roger Dewhurst to have his own thread. Roger, post only here, please. Any comments elsewhere will be deleted.
Related posts:
- Yakety yak
- Still talkin’ (open thread #2)
- Business Roundtable lies about climate, according to The Economist
- People talkin’ (open thread #1)
- Bus stop (wet day)
{ 191 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
You don’t have to be qualified, you just need to be able to read. We post links, you cry foul that we’re suggesting you read something, you post more rubbish. And so on it goes, ad nauseum. What more rubbish will come next?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Has it occurred to, but I suppose that it has not, that you are just regurgitating the stuff put out by your mentors? Try thinking for yourself.
R
Rate this comment:
0 
0
In that case, Roger, can we have some original thought from you please? Not just the latest link from Benny Peiser or the climate sceptics newsgroup, but something you’ve thought about and investigated yourself?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I thought that this is supposed to be my thread!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Ohh. Hey everybody look at Roger. Look at Roger.
No fair ignoring him. This is his thread and he can behave how he likes.
Nobody else has ever had their own thread. That just shows how special he is. So: Look at Roger. Look at Roger.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Why not indeed. There are more of you looking at my rants than looking at Gareth’s rants. That is why he is getting grumpy. He really pissed on his own feet and now he knows it!
R
Rate this comment:
0 
0
1. The IPCC’s temperature data (HadCRUT3v) has never been independently audited
2. The IPCC shows (table 2.11) that the level of scientific understanding of 13 of the 16 listed climate forcings is below “medium”.
3. That table omits ENSO forcings (and elsewhere the IPCC says that the limit of ENSO prediction and modelling is about 12 months) and it omits solar forces other than irradiance.
4. It follows from table 2.11 and the above omissions that the accurate
modelling of natural climate forces is impossible, which means that the
claim that natural forces alone cannot account for temperature variation is without merit
5. The IPCC’s only other evidence is that temperature have risen but in itself this is no proof any cause.
6. The IPCC’s primary claims were written by a group of climate modellers of which more than 40 were in a network of people who had worked together in the past. (This is in contravention of the IPCC documented procedures that require diversity.)
A little incestuous perhaps?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
That because we like you Rog, you’re our pet plonker and we wouldn’t want you wandering off to some other less superior blog. Besides, you’re so pretty to watch.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Like a pimple, you just cannot stop scratching, can you?
How about my post on the IPCC? Have a scratch, or do you want to leave that to Gareth your guru?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Incest is off-topic?
R
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Tell us please what investigations, relevant to this topic, that you have ever done?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Sorry to disappoint you Roger. So far today there have been 650 page views for the front page and the Farrar post, but only 35 for your den…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
A must see.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com.....ource.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
1. By “independently”, you mean “by anyone who disputes the AGW consensus”, ie well-read scientists don’t count, right?
2&4. It does not follow, that is your interpretation and inference from the word “medium”
3. Back on the cosmic ray theory again huh. Is the understanding of such forces, “medium”? Or is that who you got your advice from?
5. No Roger, that’s not the only evidence.
6. The whole “it’s all a vast scientific conspiracy” thing again huh. Your tin-hat could use a little polish.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/zealots.htm
Do you see yourself in this mirror?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
There are a couple of pointers below to stuff that you should see.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Seems to be a pretty good description of you, Roger:
The common factors in these campaigns of zealotry are:
* Creation and maintenance of a myth
* Ignoring all evidence countering the myth
* Ad hominem attacks on opponents
Yup, those are your tactics, all right.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
# Web-iquette for climate discussions http://bit.ly/1lOyN2 (via @wmconnolley) about an hour ago
You are all fond of Stoat I believe. What a pity that he was sacked as a Wikipedia editor.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“That is why McIntyre is wasting his time trying to “break” the hockey stick. Even if it were proved that the MWP was as warm as today, that would not mean that CO2 is not the cause of today’s warming, unless he could also come up with a mechanism that explains both the MWP and today’s warming without CO2. No one on the denialist side has been able to do this. ”
No. The onus is on you. The MWP was only 1000 years ago. When you can explain the climate changes of the last 2 million years, incorporating the effects of carbon dioxide, you might have half a case. Until then you have nothing except models that fail to predict. Now piss or get off the pot.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
You have that exactly the wrong way round. To convince us that no action is needed, you have to explain the climate of the last few million years without invoking the radiative properties of CO2.
We’ll wait, shall we?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RW October 15, 2009 at 11:03 pm
” I knew George when he was at school – and he made more sense then than he does now.”
Perhaps it is what you have between your ears that has deteriorated, not that of Garth George?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“But of the 800 words in Garth’s column, 37.5% were written by Viv Forbes. I wonder if Garth is forwarding a share of his cheque?
Have you contacted his editor? Plagarism is a serious business, especially for journos, and George is old enough and ugly enough to know better.”
I am sure that Viv Forbes will be clapping his hands. I knew him in about 1968!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
It took you but five minutes to bite. I should be out fishing.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“The dust storm that started the previous day had intensified by the time the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite flew over on October 14, 2009. What had been a semi-translucent cloud of dust became a broad front of thick airborne dust. This dense cloud of dust straddles the New South Wales and Queensland border. The bulk of the dust hangs over the South Pacific Ocean, leaving the air over land relatively clear. The large image, which encompasses a wider area, shows that the dust plume stretches tens of kilometers south of the area shown here.”
Just how much carbon did the microflora use up in using all this free fertilizer? Stick this one in your models.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Don’t get too big-headed, Roger. You’re marginally less boring than doing the accounts on a rainy afternoon is all…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
A 9 minute montage of idiocy.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
1) Land surface temperatures take into account only 29 percent of the Earth’s surface
2) The Arctic sea ice extent record referred to goes back to 1979 only. It’s mainly a function of ocean currents and wind, as well ocean water temperature and cloud cover.
3) Antarctic sea ice is up.
4) “Worldwide ocean temperature” is a function of ocean water upwelling and down welling (currents and winds).
5) So what?
6) My tin hat? Actually it would have been a smart move to wrap my hat in alfoil on one occasion in the NT when I ran out of water and had to make a detour around a large feral bull! The pilot of the chopper might have seen me sooner.
If only you bozos could see the real world.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Big headed? Fishing for minnows?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
We will I suppose. I wonder how long though?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Yes indeed. All promoting your weird beliefs! Except for the temperature graph at the end.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Not always so simple to say dust = CO2 drawdown.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2009.01.008
Rate this comment:
0 
0
As you say, nothing is simple, particularly the relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Is dust included in the models? How about loess? I doubt that anyone has thought of including that, or if they did they found it too difficult.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
An opinion you’d expect from someone entirely unwilling to look.
IPCC TAR 5.2.2.1 Soil dust
Rate this comment:
0 
0
LOESS?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Loess is a deposit. Won’t have any impact on climate as far as I can make out.
However, loess is deposited from dust.
Seems like it’s in the models
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Hah, left myself wide open for that. Perhaps “a 9 minute montage of strawmen arguments” is better. It perhaps makes a partially valid point that many things are attributed to climate change by the media, and these are not always established.
But then it scores own goals by failing to distinguish between scientific and tinhat. In the second minute it presents a paper on the earth exploding as it it were from a real scientific journal. It sure looks like a real scientific paper – I mean, they did it in LaTeX and everything – but somehow I think the “NU Journal of Discovery” lacks some scientific credibility compared to say Nature.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Ok well those numbered points look like they’re replies to my numbered replies… but there isn’t any real coherence between the replies and your ‘rebuttals’ – so you fail again, sorry.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space. Researchers made the discovery studying how growth rings of spruce trees have varied over the past half a century. As yet, they cannot explain the pattern, but variation in cosmic rays impacted tree growth more than changes in temperature or precipitation.
–Matt Walker, BBC News, 19 October 2009
The relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than to any climatological factors. As for the mechanism, we are puzzled.
–Sigrid Dengel, University of Edinburgh, 19 October 2009
A sense of panic is setting in among many campaigners for drastic cuts in global carbon emissions. It is becoming obvious that the highly trumpeted meeting set for Copenhagen this December will not deliver a binding international treaty that will make a significant difference to global warming.
–Bjorn Lomborg, 17 October 2009
Now something else:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....879251.ece
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“The last two IPCC Reports made a big thing of ocean heating. The methods used showed considerable variability, The average showed periodicity, with troughs in 1965 and 1986 and peaks in 1980 and 2005. but the temperature increase from the 1965 trough to the later peak of 2005 was confidently attributed to “global warming” caused by carbon dioxide emissions.
At least, that was the story in the first two drafts of the 2007 Report. Then the people measuring temperature provided the disturbing news that the 2005 figure actually showed a fall in temperature, and they had to put that into their final Report.
Then there was overwhelming pressure on the scientists to backtrack on such a disturbing observation, and , loyally, they discovered a “rogue” unreliable sensor
which restored the IPCC “confidence” that the ocean temperature is rising.
So they increased their coverage with a new sophisticated system called ARGO which has 3,000 probes. The results are disastrous, and they have yet to admit it. They are given in the following paper
K von Schukmann, F Galliland, and P Y Le Traon 2009 Geophysical Research Letters Vol 11124.09007. doi:1029/2008JC005237 “Global hygrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008″
To start with, the average temperature is falling. But what is worse. the variability is so great that it could not possibly be heated from the atmosphere. So it must be heated from below, from all the underwater volcanoes and plate movements that have so far been neglected. I attach the record for the Pacific basin which includes the variability of salinity,
This all comes on top of the paper by Douglass and Knox at
Douglass, D.H. and R. Knox, 2009: Physics letters A. Volume 373, Issue 36, 31 August 2009, Pages 3296-3300 “Changes in Net Flow of Ocean Heat Correlate with Past Climate Anomalies”
The abstract reads
“Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960- mid 1970s (?0.15), mid-1970s-2000 (+0.15), 2001-present (?0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.”
The summary reads
“We determine Earth’s radiation imbalance by analyzing three recent independent observational ocean heat content determinations for the period 1950 to 2008 and compare the results with direct measurements by satellites. A large annual term is found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements. Its magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the heat transferred.
Longer-term averages of the observed imbalance are not only many-fold smaller than theoretically derived values, but also oscillate in sign. These facts are not found among the theoretical predictions.
Three distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative imbalance are found: 1960 to the mid 1970s, the mid 1970s to 2000 and 2001 to present. The respective mean values of radiation imbalance are ?0.15, +0.15, and ?0.2 to ?0.3. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of climate shifts at 1960, the mid-1970s, and early 2001 identified by Swanson and Tsonis.
Knowledge of the complex atmospheric-ocean physical processes is not involved or required in making these findings. Global surface temperatures as a function of time are also not required to be known.”
The periodicity found coincides with the behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and as the heating is from below, this heating is related to the PDOmust also behave in a periodic fashion.
The finding that the earth’s energy is not balanced shows that the fundamenmtal assumption of all the computer climate models that it IS balanced is incorrect, and means that all the models are wrong.”
Oh dear! Back to the drawing board?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blo.....ra-science
Rate this comment:
0 
0
check out the october summary at http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/publi...
seems like it was mentioned – so you can stop wondering.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
← Previous Comments