skierinvermont

I think he believes much of what he is saying but there are clear instances of him stating things he knows to be false. For example, claiming to have read a particular paper I mentioned when he doesn't know which paper. Or repeating points that were clearly proven false and deliberately ignoring those replies so as to continue repeating the same falsehoods. It would be different if he actually responded to the points directed at him. But by willfully ignoring the responses I believe it is intentionally disingenuous and dishonest. Ignoring evidence contrary to out beliefs is common human behavior. But it is certainly not admirable and is one of the uglier sides of the human psyche. It is pervasive in the AGW denier community. Most people don't have the time, energy, intellect, background knowledge, or discipline to understand the science. Which is one reason these debates are so often fruitless with one side consistently ignoring the evidence presented.

I believe he is correct that CO2 lags T in ice core data for the recent ice ages. Even if I am remembering that wrong and the resolution isn't there to prove it, it's very likely that CO2 did in fact lag T over the ice ages. Previous warming periods weren't initiated by CO2 and CO2 acted as a positive feedback. When the earth warmed 1C, CO2 would be released from the oceans because warmer water holds CO2 less readily. The increased CO2 and water vapor would cause more warming (less than 1C or the warming would be 'runaway' - people often confuse positive feedbacks with runaway positive feedbacks). It's not possible to explain the ice ages without the existence of positive feedbacks (CO2 and water vapor) but they weren't the initial cause. On that point, blizzard is technically correct. What he doesn't understand is that this has been a well understood and researched aspect of the science for decades. I will say, Al Gore presented it somewhat deceptively in 'An Inconvenient Truth' which provided me with endless fodder on my radio show during my climate change skepticism days (until I actually learned and understood the science). Our current warming is unique in that huge quantities of CO2 have been artificially released into the atmosphere in a very short period.

Even Judith Curry understands the time of observation bias in the U.S. temperature record. It's not that there were no high/lows before 1920 (I have no idea where you got this idea from). It's that over time stations have switched from recording the highest temperature of the previous 24 hours at 5pm to 7am. If you have a thermometer that records the highest temperature of the previous 24 hours, and you reset it at 5pm on a hot day on April 24th you will double count the hot day. You'll get a 95F reading for April 24th, and a 93F reading from 5:01pm that will show up as the hottest temperature of April 25th (recorded at 5pm for the previous 24 hours), even though the hottest it got on April 25th was 80F. By recording at 7am, hot days are no longer double counted. You'd get just one reading of 95F for April 24th (recorded at 7am on April 25th) and one reading of 80F (recorded at 7am on April 26th). As Curry's blog points out, you don't have to do adjustments at all. Whenever a station makes a change in recording time, you treat it as an entirely new station completely independent of the old station. IEM doesn't do either form of correction, and instead treats stations which used to record highs at 5pm (and double count high temperatures from hot days) as the same station even when they change their measurement to record at 7am and no longer double count high temperatures. What exactly about this process do you disagree with? You dare to cross the mighty JUDITH CURRY? (not authored by her but clearly endorsed by her as a guest post on her blog). And you don't have any evidence or specific critiques of TOBs adjustments other than name-calling it ("VOODOO statistics") and that you don't trust scientists. https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/#:~:text=Between 1960 and today%2C the,and maximum temperatures via USHCN. The number of little children running around with their pants off screaming about temperature adjustments who don't understand why they are made is absurd. At least Curry gets it. Even if you make ZERO TOBs adjustments and just treat stations that change their observation time as two separate stations, the result is exactly the same. For example say Omaha recorded at 5pm from 1895-1960 and then at 7am from 1960-present. You would treat these two as completely separate stations. It's the same thing as making a temperature record when not all the stations start in the same year (some start in 1870 and some as late as 1920). As long as anomalies are used, stations dropping in and/or out of the data set don't matter. This is the method Berkeley used. They made no time of observation adjustment, but get the exact same result as NOAA, which makes a .2C TOBs adjustment based on statistical analysis of hot-day double counting.

There's an answer for everything Don. The glaciers in Glacier National Park are probably disappearing from being walked on too much. IEM probably shows Montana hasn't warmed at all and unadjusted (uncorrected) temperatures are BEST!

Classic. A decent human being would have some shame and admit when they lied.

You don't even know which paper I'm talking about. Next time you lie, at least make it less obvious.

Maybe actually read the paper. They explain all of this in extreme detail. I look forward to your equally detailed critique.

Yeah temperature measurements taken at 2pm in 1920 are the BEST for comparing to temperature measurements taken at 6pm today!!! Are you trying to be a joke?

I think it is important that temperature measurements over time be taken at the same time of day for consistency's sake. Apparently you'd rather compare temperatures taken at 2pm in 1920 to temperatures taken at 6pm today. In the U.S. this results in an upward adjustment. Adjustments in the rest of the world are actually negative.

This is at least the 2nd time Blizzard has used data sources where the actual authors of the data say the data is unverified, inaccurate, and/or unsuitable for climate studies. Given the pattern I have to assume that this is intentional rather than accidental.

I have no idea what IEM is, and as you state they explicitly warn that the data is of unknown accuracy. I don't know if anybody else noticed but the NOAA graph bluewave posted shows 2X more warming in NJ than the IEM graph does. I suspect the results would be similar for other states as well. If you look closely, IEM warms from 71.5 to 73, while NOAA warms from 70 to 73. This is typical dishonest behavior from the anti-science side. They pick whatever sources makes their point without any regard for its accuracy. Even when the source they are citing explicitely states there is no warranty of accuracy and to use at your own risk! EDIT: it looks like blizzard already noticed this but predictably sided with the graph that says data may be inaccurate and use at your own risk! I suspect he chose the IEM graph knowing full well that the data was unverified and uncorrected for things such as change in instrumentation and time of observation. It's like saying it was hotter in 1940 at 2pm than in 1980 at 6pm! As Karl et al. 1986 epxlained, climate stations in the U.S. have changed their time of observations many times over the years. Back in 1986 adjusting temperatures to reflect a consistent time of observation was just good science. It wasn't until the mid-2000s when the wave of right wing denier websites suddenly discovered (or pretended to discover) what everybody else knew all along that this became controversial.

Yeah he actually briefly acknowledged this point a page or two back. I thought he might actually be in for an objective discussion at that point. But then he continued on insisting that the very slight positive trend in ENSO from 1970-present has somehow increased OHC, despite the fact that over periods with very negative ENSO trends (2003-2013 for example, there are others) OHC just goes up without the slightest slowdown. Then he brought up the possibility of some sort of lag. So I pointed out that no matter what lag you pick, there is never a decrease in OHC over an extended period when ENSO goes down. There's just no noticeable long-term effect at all between ENSO and OHC. The only thing there is as I pointed out before and like you are also point out, is a brief reduction in OHC as the ocean radiates heat to the atmosphere during +ENSO (which is actually the opposite of the effect he's hypothesizing, and also much more short-lived). It's pretty clear he's just trolling at this point.

Really interesting to see that show up right over the corn belt. Even if it's not 100% due to agriculture changes, still really interesting to see that cool spot right over them with warmth all around.

I didn't say you have half a brain. Read it again. What I said was you need to stop posting lies and actually respond to the corrections people have made to your posts. I don't know how to say this any nicer. This is a forum for science and facts, not politics and lies from disinformation blogs.

I responded to your points. You do not respond and repeat lies. That's called trolling. Anybody with half a brain can see you can't have a discussion on the merits so you just repeat more lies. Either respond to the points or stop posting. Nobody wants or needs more of your lies ripped from disinformation blogs. If we wanted those sorts of lies we know where to find them. If you have actual peer-reviewed science to share, please do so.

I'm just saying if you got rid of corn syrup, they'd just go back to using sugar which would be just as bad. So I don't really see corn syrup as the problem. It's a whole society problem. The regulations on food labeling and advertising could be stronger. Public education could be improved so people understand exercise, diet, and food labeling. Economic disparities that lead to dysfunctional families and upbringings for children are also to blame.

100s of thousands of people in U.S. die from air pollution from cars and coal power every year. Many millions other suffer from asthma and cardiovascular problems which are inflamed during periods of stagnant poor air quality. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231013004548 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(16)30023-8/fulltext https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749107002849 https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/health-effects-of-outdoor-air-pollution?source=post_page--------------------------- In China and India where the air is much worse, the death tolls are much higher. I have family in China and when the air is bad even young health people get headaches and cold symptoms and have to wear a mask. The elderly just have to stay inside with air purifiers. Which is why these countries are at least trying to clean up and are heavily adopting renewables and closing down dirty energy sources. And guess what? Their economies are stronger than ever and no doomsday widespread dog eating scenario. What nonsense right wing scare tactics.

This is a right-wing political lie. Wind is cheaper than coal which is why the free market has adopted it so readily the last 10 years. It is the primary source of new power in the United States over the last decade (roughly tied with natural gas). Electric cars and hybrids are cheaper than gas cars for consumers who drive more than 10,000-15,000 miles per year. Emissions control devices on gas vehicles are dirt cheap. I've already pointed this out. And yet you repeat the same lie. You are a troll and should have your posting limited. This is a forum for science and facts not politics and lies.

As I've explained 8 times now, if ENSO causes long term changes in OHC, we can test that by picking periods where ENSO went up and seeing if OHC went up. We can also test it by picking periods where ENSO went down and seeing if OHC went down. You have deliberately avoided picking periods where ENSO went down. For your 'hypothesis' to work it should be consistent with data - both up and down periods of ENSO. It only takes one example to disprove a hypothesis. Examples that are consistent don't prove the hypothesis, they only help 'corroborate' it. This is how the scientific method works. ENSO went down dramatically form 2003-2013. OHC continued its rapid and relentless rise with zero slowdown or effect whatsoever. This disproves that ENSO affects OHC over the long-term. Your 'hypothesis' is inconsistent with multiple observations where ENSO went down for many years, and OHC continued rising rapidly with zero effect whatsoever. I've also explained 8 times now that OHC isn't about 'oh no the oceans are too hot for the fishies!' Measuring OHC is about measuring the planetary energy imbalance. I've stricken the rest of your post and will respond to it once you have addressed this above point. I've explained this 8 times now. You have yet to respond to these points. You are a troll. If you continue to spew lies without anything to substantiate them I will suggest the moderators limit the number of posts you can make.

As I've said (6 times now!!!) the ONI trend from 2003-2013 (post-Argo) is very negative. The OHC increase didn't slow down at all, even if you apply some bogus lag. OHC continued its persistent and rapid increase. I'm not going to respond to your other bogus points until you respond to this one. As I've said before, I become impatient with you because you are here to troll and not to actually learn anything. This is demonstrated by your sidestepping of the above point 6 times now. I'm not going to waste time explaining the scientific rebuttals to your other points just so you can ignore the responses as you have ignored the above point. Life is good for you. Not for the millions of people whose displacement, starvation and/or death is directly related to climate change. This is a moral issue and you are here to troll and spread lies. I find that disgusting. Sorry if you don't like it. That's MY opinion.

I was confused too having been away from climate discussions for a few years I forgot what TCR is.

I've made this very simple yet very important point 5 times now blizzard. It clearly refutes any theory that your or Spencer or Anthony Watts (lol) come up with that ENSO is responsible for OHC increases. Until you address it is quite clear you are not here to engage genuinely.

Except the authors of surface temperature datasets have documented why they believe their adjustments produce a highly accurate result, whereas the authors of the radiosonde data do precisely the opposite. They explicitely state that they have little confidence in their own data. Citing radiosonde data is to ignore the cautions of the authors of the data. It makes no sense and is another example of Christy's intellectual dishonesty. It's like me making some best guesses about the temperature in my hometown over the past year and then you holding it up to the whole world as some sort of gold standard for temperatures in Denver. It's called lying.

There are examples such as the one bdwx cited where the adjustments are done downwards as well. The skeptic sites you read just focus on the instances of adjusting upwards. There really is no argument to be had until you actually read the papers documenting the adjustments in detail which takes many weeks of heavy reading.

Implied and actual TCR likely would not differ dramatically. Implied TCR is basically the same as TCR but measured over a shorter period. It's ECS he's confusing it with. Warming .5C in 30 years @ 1.1% CO2 per year (implied TCR) is about the same as warming 1.8C in 100 years @ 1% CO2 per year (true TCR). Either way, even if the CO2 increases cease, the temperature continues to rise until ECS ~(3C).