Understanding Deep Ocean Warming

Trenberth explains :

Despite the fact that we have no evidence or mechanism for deep ocean warming, we know that it must be real – because our climate models can’t be wrong.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to Understanding Deep Ocean Warming

  1. Do they have a climate model or just an observation based on a really really crappy data set?

    Observations are important when they support a particular point of view. Otherwise, models are more important.

  2. ronvanwegen says:

    It would be wrong to dignify that comment with a comment.

  3. DarrylB says:

    There are so many assumptions and uncertainties in the models, and there are dozens of models, each with a different projection.
    Obviously, if there are so many different projections, then there has to be much uncertainty because each and every model must have separate inputs based on speculative assumptions.
    Trenberth is an example of the antithesis of correct scientific processes. Each model really is a unique hypothesis. When observations do not match a hypothesis, a scientist should accept the possibility that the hypothesis is wrong. He simply cannot accept this.
    It seems that this brand of science has become an all or nothing model. Science and therefore the public should accept the idea that perhaps there is a relatively small positive or no positive feedback.
    It is not about winning an argument, it is about arriving at the most accurate information to decide upon the best course of action. The result of the foolish alarmist propaganda is that no decisions will be made in any scientific arena because of the cry wolf mentality.
    Personally, I think water– where it is, where it isn’t and what is in it is a much greater concern.

  4. jefftfred says:

    Last count of Argo buoys was 3551, placed all around the planet.. Trenberth should have access to the depth/temperature and salinity readings from most if not all of these automatic buoys, which show a temperature at depth is around 2 deg C, at 2000mtres up to SST varying by location.
    But then this is empirical data and not computer modelling, so please disregard above.

    • T.O.O says:

      Quite right. And Trenberth did use them — uploaded data every 10 days in fact. He also made analyses with and without Argo to try and minimize uncertainty in his conclusions.

  5. Ben Vorlich says:

    Surely he cannot be serious? Where’s the chalk dust?

  6. Larry Fields says:

    Hey Kevin, can you say: faith-based science?

  7. gofer says:

    It has to be there because CO2 is increasing makes as much sense as I have to have money in the bank because I’ve got a lot of blank checks. Don’t checks equal money like CO2 equals warming? Surely…….

  8. T.O.O says:

    What Trenberth actually said:
    “The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean’s role in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new OBSERVATION BASED reanalysis of the ocean.”

    • Andy Oz says:

      That Trenberth statement is exactly the same as what a deist believer or a believer in ancient myths would say. “I can’t show you the evidence of the god(or myth) but believe me it’s true”. Faith has no place in science except as an excuse for one power group to persecute people like Galileo and anyone who doesn’t believe the CAGW myth. No evidence of ocean warming and no global temperature warming for over 17 years has busted the CAGW myth.
      A myth created purely to garner more wealth for UK financial centre and some really dopey socialist green dominated governments. 80 days before Australia repeals the Stupid Carbon Tax and punts the Watermelon Greens into opposition. Emancipation day is 15th September.

      • T.O.O says:

        Andy Oz,
        Faith is belief without evidence. There are thousands of empirical papers by scientists the world over who have built mountains of evidence in support of AGW theory — including in the oceans. Your little speech is just gobbledygook.

        • Andy Oz says:

          Why in hell do you hang around Tooi? How much is the carbon credit industry paying you and the rest of the rapid response team to run propaganda?
          There are “mountains of papers” on religious deities yet none show up. Faith as you say is belief without evidence. No warming has shown up that cannot be explained by natural variation. You are simply an apparatchik of the carbon credit industry trying to protect the corrupt income taken from poor people all over the world.
          I have only contempt for the whole scam you support.
          Time to fess up.

        • T.O.O says:

          I ask for factual evidence (many times and none has appeared) and you say that I am making propaganda, Brian wants me to pay for it (in advance) and Steve says that it is spam.

          All I have asked for it for you to provide the evidence for your allegations — don’t you think that is a reasonable request?

        • papiertigre says:

          fuck you – Mountain of evidence that you can’t talk about, or show to anybody.

          The secret evidence to be judged as sacred by the FiSA court.

        • papiertigre says:

          Did I forget to say FUCK YOU for saying “mountains of evidence” ?

          Just in case

        • T.O.O says:

          Yes papiertigre,
          These mountains of evidence are “secretly” hidden on the secret internet but if you are clever enough there is a secret tool you can use to find them — it is called Google.

    • gator69 says:

      No you lying dumbass, he “actually” said…

      “Despite the fact that we have no evidence or mechanism for deep ocean warming, we know that it must be real – because our climate models can’t be wrong.”

      Your high priests have been hitting the Sacrificial Ethanol again, and now have permanent tiny brain damage.

      Suck it! 😆

      • T.O.O says:

        I can see by your colorful language and emoticon that you are a man to be taken seriously. Now can you produce a citation for that Trenberth quote?

        My quotation comes from the extract of the paper he wrote: Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
        Magdalena A. Balmaseda1,*, Kevin E. Trenberth2, Erland Källén1

        • gator69 says:

          ” In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m…”

          Truthdearth bases this wild claim upon what again?

          BTW – A sense of humor is a sign of higher intelligence you schmuck! 😆

          PS – Suck it.

        • Latitude says:

          uh…that’s 30% of a small fraction of a degree……ROTFL

          …and some idiot claims they found it

        • gator69 says:

          And other idiots believe it!

        • Latitude says:

          hey!!…..I can find anything if it’s small enough that no one else can find it

        • T.O.O says:

          So gator69,
          Should I file your alleged quotation from Trenberth as just another one of those “imaginary realities” that everyone is so fond of using here on “Real Science”?

        • gator69 says:

          File it where Truthdearth found his missing heat. Of course you will need him to bend over first! : lol:

        • tckev says:

          Just three things make OBSERVED DATA for this deep ocean warming –
          1. Location.
          2. Volume of water.
          3. Temperature of this body of water.

          NOTE – Nobody has found it so it is not proved to be.

  9. Bob Tisdale says:

    T.O.O., “…a new OBSERVATION BASED reanalysis of the ocean…” is still the output of a computer model.

    Balmaseda et al (2013) has been given way too much credit. It is presented with over-confidence, as is much of climate science, yet it is nothing more than computer-aided speculation.

    First, it relies on the ECMWF Ocean ReAnalysis System 4 (ORAS4), which is not data. It’s based on a computer model that has ocean heat content data as one of its inputs. At their webpage here…
    …ECMWF provides the following disclaimer:

    “There is large uncertainty in the ocean reanalysis products (especially in the transports), difficult to quantify. These web pages are aimed at the research community. Any outstanding climate feature should be investigated futher and not taken as truth.”

    Hmm. What part of “should…not be taken as truth” did Balmaseda et al overlook?

    Second, in addition to ocean heat content data, the standard run-of-the-mill climate forcings are used as input to the ORAS4 reanalysis, but the ocean heat content data already contains the influences of any forcings. That’s why the ORAS4 reanalysis has variations that do not exist in the data. The most obvious are the responses to volcanic aerosols. Willis Eschenbach illustrated that with this comparison of OHC data and the output of the ORAS4 reanalysis:

    Willis’s post is here:

    Third, Balmaseda et al basically blame La Niña events for the additionally warming below 700 meters—through an unidentified mechanism to boot. But Trenberth understands exactly how and why that extra heat is created by La Ninas. He presented it in Trenberth et al (2002):

    Click to access 2000JD000298.pdf

    There they write in paragraph 57:
    “The negative feedback between SST and surface fluxes can be interpreted as showing the importance of the discharge of heat during El Niño events and of the recharge of heat during La Niña events. Relatively clear skies in the central and eastern tropical Pacific allow solar radiation to enter the ocean, apparently offsetting the below normal SSTs, but the heat is carried away by Ekman drift, ocean currents, and adjustments through ocean Rossby and Kelvin waves, and the heat is stored in the western Pacific tropics. This is not simply a rearrangement of the ocean heat, but also a restoration of heat in the ocean.”

    Did Trenberth forget that downward shortwave radiation (sunlight), not downward longwave radiation (infrared radiation), increases during La Niña events?

    Maybe Balmaseda et al should have examined the NCEP/DOE Reanalysis-2 outputs. Over the equatorial Pacific (5S-5N, 120E-80W), it’s downward shortwave radiation, not downward longwave radiation that’s increased since 1979, and it’s downward shortwave radiation that increases during La Niña events:

    Fourth, the speculated-about increase in ocean heat content from 700m to 2000 m relates to a change in temperature measured in hundredths if not thousands of a deg C. The suggestion by Balmaseda et al that we have in place instruments that can measure that change in temperature for the global oceans at depths of 700-2000 meters to the required accuracy strains common sense.

    Those points and others were presented in my recent post:
    For those who wish to see additional comments, refer to the cross post at WUWT:

    Fifth, curiously, in the recent Washington Post op-ed by Oppenheimer and Trenberth, they failed to cite Balmaseda et al (2013):

    I discussed that in the post here:


    • T.O.O says:

      From the Trenberth paper:
      “ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations. These consist of temperature and salinity (T/S) profiles from the Hadley Centre’s EN3 data collection [Ingleby and Huddleston, 2007], which include expendable bathythermographs (T only, with depth corrections from Table 1 of Wijffels et al. [2008]), conductivity-temperature-depth sensors (T/S), TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA moorings (T/S), Argo profilers (T/S), and autonomous pinniped bathythermograph (or elephant seals, T/S). Altimeter-derived along track sea level anomalies from AVISO are also assimilated. Gridded maps of SST from NOAA are used to adjust the heat fluxes via strong relaxation, and altimeter global mean sea-levels are used to constrain the global average of the fresh-water flux. The ocean model horizontal resolution is approximately 1°, refined meridionally down to 1/3° at the equator. There are 42 vertical levels with separations varying smoothly from 10 m at the surface to 300 m at the bottom, with partial cell topography.”

      The Tenberth model sure seems to have used a lot of observations and instrumentation — including Argo.

      Argo is a globalarray of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours aftercollection.

      • gator69 says:

        Wow! Nice cut and paste job parrot boy!

        • T.O.O says:

          Thanks Gator69,
          I thought that it is best to use evidence verbatim. Speaking of evidence — I am still waiting for that citation from you — any chance you can find it soon?

        • gator69 says:

          Don’t you see it? It’s right there next to Truthdearth’s missing heat, that you believe he found using a model. 😆

      • T.O.O says:

        So that answer would be a no?

      • Bob Tisdale says:

        T.O.O.: You obviously missed the disclaimer from ECMWF website that I posted in my first reply. See their webpage here…

        “There is large uncertainty in the ocean reanalysis products (especially in the transports), difficult to quantify. These web pages are aimed at the research community. Any outstanding climate feature should be investigated futher and not taken as truth.”

        Again, what part of “should…not be taken as truth” did Balmaseda et al overlook?

        It’s make-believe data, T.O.O.


        • chris y says:

          I predict that the ECMWF website will be updated, removing the inconvenient sentence and adding a reference to Balmaseda et al as *proof* that the ECMWF results are now ‘truth.’

          Climate topology at work.

        • T.O.O says:

          Not really. Did you read his entire paper? He tries to minimize uncertainty with ORAS4 by augmenting these readings with and without Argo and repeating evaluations every 10 days. Plus this study is consistent with other studies to measure increases in Ocean Heat Contenthttp://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/), from
          CSIRO (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_data_cmar.html,

          Are there uncertainties — sure. Were they discussed openly – absolutely. Is the study consistent with other studies – yes. Do they use make-believe data – not by a long shot.

  10. Richard T. Fowler says:

    Does freedom of speech apply to lies when done in the service of a plan to overthrow democracy and capitalism? Does it apply to lies when done in the service of a plan to institute a new global Holocaust? (Or even a national one?)


  11. We’re all considered traitors here (not whistleblowers), according to the fraud-infested authorities, because we are not going through the “proper, peer-review channels” (except “T.O.O” above, who is a proud acolyte of the consensus–which he deems sacred–and the tyranny it represents).

    • T.O.O says:

      I am an acolyte of factual evidence — always have been. BTW do you have any factual evidence for this allegation: “fraud-infested authorities”? (if it has to do with climate science — not Zimbabwe)

      • gator69 says:

        BS! You follow models. Models are not “fact”, they are opinion and guesswork when it comes to climate.

        This has been the failure all along, the only “facts” we have confirm climate change, not CAGW. A model is a tool, not evidence.

        Learn the difference you schmuck! 😆

  12. miked1947 says:

    I will repeat this claim from GISS about temperatures:
    Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
    A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.

    • Latitude says:

      Mike, it’s even sillier than that….

      They’re talking 0.15 degrees….

      1/2 a degree of warming X the 30% they claim hiding in the deep ocean…..

      yeah right

    • T.O.O says:

      What is your obsession with this? I have already shown you that GISS is just one of many instruments, organizations and universities that is used by PIOMAS. Many lines of evidence are used as a basis for their findings. And, don’t forget, PIOMAS validates their findings with real world observations.

      Models are used to assist in forecasting just as they are in every business and scientific endeavor used by man — , you will find modeling in everything from politics to pyrotechnics and from computers to climate science. Are they perfect – no. Are they re-calibrated against observations — of course. Do they get better – yes. Are they essential to modern business, engineering and science — without a doubt.

      • Andy Oz says:

        “Many lines of evidence”

        Many white lines snorted up post grads noses.

        • T.O.O says:

          US Navy, satellites, moorings, U of Alberta, Scripps, etc etc.

          BTW, I thought your joke was really clever.

      • miked1947 says:

        Climate models have not gotten better with age as they are designed to provide a predetermined answer. If reality does not fit the Climate Models they have to adjust reality to better fit the models.
        In other fields there are fixed data to test the models against. In Climatology there are models testing models and what ever data has been distorted beyond reality by “Necessary Adjustments” to fit the predetermined results.
        PIOMAS is not better than any of the other models. NOAA can not even tell me what the weather will be like in 24 hours with any real accuracy. I currently have a hazardous statement claiming that normal weather patterns will continue over my region for the next week and that could lead to severe weather. They have been saying that for a week now.

        • T.O.O says:

          “Climate models have not gotten better with age as they are designed to provide a predetermined answer”

          i suppose it is pointless to ask for evidence for that claim?

        • miked1947 says:

          Look at the models from 1988 until the latest version and show me the improvements. They just regurgitate out the Garbage they are programmed to spew. I would bet they still can not do clouds properly. They probably can not do regional long term weather patterns that are displayed in historic records. At least I have not seen one that can. There are simple models that can be run on a PC that do climate better than those models run on a super computer. But then you probably have not heard of Armstrong and the science of Forecasting.

        • T.O.O says:

          PIOMAS didn’t exist until this century so they couldn’t have made models in 1988.

        • miked1947 says:

          TOO: I was referring to Climate Models in general. If PIOMAS is a “New” model then it has to earn respect and “Prove” its value. I would say when it can predict reality for about 60 years. Not provide what-if scenarios like the rest of the climate models, but actually predict reality 6 months or longer out.

        • T.O.O says:

          So the game plan is to wait 60 years until it has been “proven”?

          OK, I will zip that message off to the oil companies, shipping lines and to the US and Canadian Navies.

        • miked1947 says:

          One should hope they rely on something a bit more reliable for operations than an unreliable model. There is a group of clowns thinking they will row through the “Northwest” Passage this year because of “Projections” from “Reliable” climate models. I hope they have wheels on their canoe.

        • T.O.O says:

          You make a very good argument for more research to be conducted.

        • miked1947 says:

          More research by “Unbiased” researchers using the scientific method. Conformation Bias and Herd Mentality are the main problem in the CAGW / CACC camp.

  13. dbstealey says:

    T.O.O. forgets that skeptics have nothing to prove. Per the Scientific Method, the onus is completely on those who put forth the conjecture that CO2 causes global warming [which is the basic debate].

    The onus is on the alarmist crowd, but they have abjectly failed to produce any testable, measurable scientific evidence to support their CO2=AGW belief system.

    The only empirical evidence available shows that a rise in global temperature causes a rise in CO2; not vice versa. There is no comparable chart showing that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T. None. Trenberth is winging it, and T.O.O. is his enabler and apologist.

    Since there is no testable, measurable scientific evidence supporting the mistaken belief that CO2 is the cause of rising global temperatures, then the entire “carbon” scare is deconstructed. It has been debunked by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth. Trenberth’s beliefs mean nothing.

    T.O.O. needs to get up to speed on the Scientific Method. His current argument is no different than past arguments made to support witch doctors. T.O.O. can wake me when he figures out how the Scientific Method actually works. Until then, he is engaging in pseudo-scientific hand-waving.

  14. T.O.O says:

    “T.O.O. forgets that skeptics have nothing to prove.” Even when skeptics make their own claims?

    It’s the sun —
    the Arctic ice volume isn’t reducing —
    glaciers aren’t retreating —
    CO2 can’t raise the temperature of the atmosphere —
    climate scientists are part of a world wide hoax sponsored by the UN —
    climate scientists fudge the data to make it appear warmer than it really is —
    climate scientists can’t get funding unless they toe the CAGW line —
    Trenberth said this, Hansen said that —
    PIOMAS is crap —
    there is no testable, measurable scientific evidence supporting the mistaken belief that CO2 is the cause of rising global temperatures —

    etc, etc and so on.

    Are only scientists required to provide independent and factual evidence in support of their claims?

  15. tckev says:

    Are only scientists required to provide independent and factual evidence in support of their claims?

    No, there is more –
    They have to show practical, verifiable, reproducible, physical proof by direct measurement to known standards to support their claim. Or failing this, claims must be verified by logical use of known laws of physics and mathematics, measurements of actual physical entities to publish verifiable standards, and all methods of any data manipulation (citing reason for and shortcomings of such methods) over an appreciable length of time – say 20 or more years. All methodologies must be documented and none assumed.
    The proof for the claim must also show why any other claim for the said effect is not true.

    Outputs from computer models alone are neither real data nor a proof.

    That is the job of a scientist.

    • T.O.O says:

      Got it. Now who should be the judge of whether this evidence is “up to scratch”?

      I think it should be people who are able to read and understand complex numbers — agreed? I also think that we should have people who work in all those fields that are either directly or tangentially connected to climate science. And I think we should have people who are familiar with scientific methodology and data collection — also agreed?

      Hmmmm — so where do you think we can find people like that?

      • tckev says:

        Now who should be the judge of whether this evidence is “up to scratch”?

        Everybody and anybody should be able to verify science if they have the time, money, and inclination but they don’t have to. It is still part of the scientist job to prove his theory to his peers and to the public. Proof to the public is a harder nut to crack but that is science’s job if it wishes the public to pay them attention, award honors, and pay them.

        Also note that proof and who needs what level of proof is directly linked to how much such proof will cost. AGW if proved will overturn Western ideas of commerce, and cost many trillions of dollars, consequently the proof better be good enough for everyone/anyone to understand. And it must disprove, or at the least show invalid, all other theories.

        Newton’s ideas on gravity only took about 150 years to be accepted as laws. Einstein’s ideas are still theories.

      • T.O.O says:

        Oh, I almost forgot, I also think it should be a world-wide effort because, after all, it is GLOBAL warming that we are talking about. And we should try very hard to build a consensus otherwise we could have one group or country acting selfishly to the detriment of the others. That could cause unintended conflict.

        Wow! Big, big task. Wouldn’t it be great if some of this was already in place? I mean, what if we find out that we do, indeed, have a major problem on our hands but not enough time to deal with it?

        Well tckev. what is your plan here?

        • tckev says:

          Consensus has NO PLACE in science – period. It matters not if one person believes a theory, or everyone believes it is immaterial. The only thing that matters is that it can be proved in the real world as true, to the highest available standards.

          Newton did not form a consensus of opinion, he had to show by physical measurements, known mathematics, and force of argument that his theory was correct. There were, in his day many to deny him his just respect, more than anything it was his proof that triumphed.
          More damage has been done to science by seeking consensus and not truth than virtually any other misdeed. And that is not just climate science.
          Science is the seeking of truth in the natural world, nothing else.

        • T.O.O says:

          No consensus? So you don’t think that the scientific community should have the same INTERPRETATION of the science? Policy makers from different countries are free to choose whichever interpretation that they like the most? A free for all then?

          Good plan.

        • suyts says:

          Yes, it is a good plan. If there was any validity to the global warming meme, clearly, some places would benefit, while others, not so much. It is a nation’s obligation to work in the best interests of their own people. While trying to build a consensus is saying that we should choose what’s best for other people. That we can pick the winners and losers. That’s a sure fire way to start conflicts. We’ve no business even attempting such monstrous acts, even if it wasn’t a delusion.

        • tckev says:

          The bottom line is that the theory of CO2 mediated climate change is a theory. And on the back of that theory many are saying the very way that Western commerce operates must be changed, and changed for the worse. You cannot run modern systems without reliable power, so far only fossil fuels and nuclear power can do this. You cannot build anything in steel without coal. You cannot as cheaply build without concrete, it manufacture requires huge amounts of heat, usually from fossil fuels.
          And all for why? Because a theory says that man’s production of CO2 as part of the atmosphere – about ¼ that 400ppm – is so much that nature is unable to adequately handle it. After more than 3 billion years nature is now incapable. This despite the fact that in history CO2 levels have been so much higher before.

          But the theory says that we must limit our CO2 output, so out goes reliable power and with it modern communications, including the internet, radio, and television broadcasting. Out goes steel, concrete, travel, man-made fibers, plastic, glass, heating and air conditioning, most modern medicines, and modern methods of farming. The wrecking ball is taken to all of them because of a yet to be proved theory that is based on the (then) transitory correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and some hypothetical averaged global temperature.
          For all this we must give up? Not likely not without real, verifiable, understandable proof.

        • tckev says:

          Your scientific community can have any amount of consensus it wants but (and it its a big but) the consensus is meaningless without scientific proof.
          Real honest science neither needs nor relies on consensus. Why should it? Truth is truth, and no amount of interpretation will change it.
          Gravity was governed by Newton’s laws – no reinterpretation changed it, until Einstein’s new theory came along. Einstein had a consensus? No, and still not everyone in this field thinks Einstein is not correct but that is how science should be – a conglomeration of skeptics. Skepticism within the scientific community is healthy and is how it should be. Scientists must prove themselves and their theories. Anything else is just a powerful and expensive talking shop.
          Truth does not need to be crowd sourced, it just is.

        • tckev says:

          Typo –
          “No, and still not everyone in this field thinks Einstein is not correct but that is how science should be – a conglomeration of skeptics.”
          should be
          “No, and still not everyone in this field thinks Einstein is correct but that is how science should be – a conglomeration of skeptics.”

        • T.O.O says:

          suyts and tckev,
          Hold on hold on. Haven’t we already agreed on a new tckev’s plan for how climate science should proceed? But just let me throw in a small hypothetical here — you know just for arguments sake. Lets say all the scientists in the world agree (due to tckev’s fantastic new science model) that the Himalayan glaciers will melt at exactly 5 gigatons per year but the Cambodian scientists interpret that to mean that the Mekong River will dry out in 20 years thus they decide they need to build an enormous dam so that they will have water for irrigation. All good — right? But what if the Vietnamese scientists interpret that to mean that the Mekong will have 200 years of flow before it drys out and they don’t see the need for the Cambodians to act so rashly because, you know, a dam will mean they have no water at all and they don’t have the money to build 20 desalination plants especially after buying all that new military equipment.

          You see where I am going with this don’t you?

          Now I don’t want to say you guys don’t have a heck of a plan, but maybe, just maybe, it might be a good idea for the scientists to form a consensus on the ramifications of their now upgraded, unified and absolutely proven science before the policy makers have a crack at it?

          Just a suggestions for you guys to, like, mull over. Not right now, of course, but, like, when you get a chance. No rush.

        • suyts says:


          Yes, I do understand where you’re going with this. But, like many, you’ve failed to think about the arguments of others.
          So, you believe the world should pick the winner and loser in your hypothetical scenario. And by the world, I mean a bunch of pinheads who clearly have no appreciation for the very real impacts of socioeconomic dynamics of their imposition. It would be an abhorrent step to a global totalitarianism, run by an oligarchy of people whose only real agreement is that humanity should not have free use of energy.

          TOO, this climate change madness isn’t a tool to be used for world peace. And, your scenario isn’t even close to realism. Himalayan glaciers? phhhttt. While this drips with sarcasm, intentionally so, please read this http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/yes-yes-they-really-are-that-dumb/

          It’s clear that the consensus is wrong more often than not. We’re no where near understanding our climate. You think we should be ruled by a group of people who don’t know what they’re talking about? Just because they can vote and agree to be unfathomably stupid?

          But, playing alone with your scenario, let’s say we have a consensus and decide Cambodia is correct. Then what? Under threat of world attack the Vietnamese are just suppose to let their fresh water supply be cut off? Do you understand the dystopia you’re advocating? Let’s say the consensus says Vietnam is correct, but the consensus was wrong. And Cambodia couldn’t unilaterally act, because of that same world threat. We would have then condemned two nations to death, starvation, and ruin. But, we all agreed so….. there would be that.

          TOO, even if the notion of ACC is correct, and even if we got to the point where we understood our climate and could accurately predict regional changes (that’s utter fantasy, yes, but we’re pretending here) I’d still say we should let liberty determine our course. We are the captains of our own ships, we should jealously guard such a position.

  16. gator69 says:

    Here is another issue that derails morons who think it is time to act on “consensus” (mob rule)…

    “Based on our own analyses and the documented unscientific behavior of global warming alarmists, we concluded that the global warming alarm is the product of an anti-scientific political movement.
    Having come to this conclusion, we turned to the “structured analogies” method to forecast the likely outcomes of the warming alarmist movement. In our ongoing study we have, to date, identified 26 similar historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts behind the analogous alarms proved correct. Twenty-five alarms involved calls for government intervention and the government imposed regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.”

    Click to access ags2011congress.pdf

    Fools rush in… 😆

    • tckev says:

      Thanks gator69 nice quote.

    • T.O.O says:

      I heard only 12 of the 73 participants agreed that analysis was correct and 47 were still in the bar when the vote was taken.

      • gator69 says:

        Thanks for further embellishing your moron credentials. Faced with the fact that we usually get it wrong when we move under false “consensus”, the dipshit above is ready to rush in. What about the precautionary principle? 😆

        CAGW is a failed hypothesis. 17 years of no warming, every model a failure, and all the paid government deniers of natural variability come out braying for more money and control.

        Either bring evidence or go home. 😆

        • T.O.O says:

          Yes yes Gator69,
          You make such a persuasive argument. Let me consider all the facts and figures you have given me and I will get back to you.

        • gator69 says:

          Running away from the facts again? Run further this time, get lost. 😉

        • michael says:

          “CAGW is a failed hypothesis. 17 years of no warming, every model a failure, and all the paid government deniers of natural variability come out braying for more money and control… Either bring evidence or go home.”

          The evidence:


        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Why hasn’t somebody roasted you and served you for Thanksgiving

        • Latitude says:

          The evidence:
          Is that fudged temps went up less than 1/2 a degree in 40 years

          so what?

          The overall trend is still down……..

      • T.O.O says:

        I believe you have actually forgotten what this post is all about. If you remember, Steve put forward a Trenberth quote which he did not cite. I then corrected the Trenberth misquote with an accurate one and cited the source. You then gracefully entered the scene by reiterating Steve’s misquote as being truthful but steadfastly refused to offer a citation. This then led to a larger discussion on the need for accurate, independent, factual and cited information when one makes outrageous statements. This took an unusual turn and morphed into the need for the entire scientific method to be re-evaluated. We were in the midst of the details of what this new science should look like when you again graced us with your presence. Somehow though, in the midst of this activity, you became disorientated and forgot that it was you, not I, who made the un-referenced and outrageous statement and that it is from you, not I, that is remiss. It is quite ironic that you are asking me for the evidence of a statement you made.

        Real Science, like life itself, is full of little ironies.

        • gator69 says:

          Stop running from the facts moron.

          Have you never heard if sarcasm? It would not surprise me if you do not get the joke, as it does require greater intelligence than you possess.

          Now, back to your ridiculous assertions.

          Noone is trying to reevaluate the Scientific Method, we are simply asking alarmists to start using it. Period.

          Again dipshit, where is this “mountain” of evidence? Hmmmm?

          How about you start with just ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes. Hmmmmm?

          Just ONE. That’s all. Reach into that “mountain” of evidence and produce JUST ONE. 😆

          17 years of zero warming. Every alarmist model an abject failure (just like you!). Nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here. What would the “Scientific Method” say about that dipshit? 😆

        • T.O.O says:

          The ball is in court — it was you and Steve that made this assertion: “Despite the fact that we have no evidence or mechanism for deep ocean warming, we know that it must be real – because our climate models can’t be wrong.” and I have been on (so far) a fruitless pursuit for you to provide the reference for it.

          Why you continue to believe it was me and not you who made that assertion is perplexing.

        • gator69 says:

          I never claimed to have found imaginary heat at the bottom of the oceans. What is your point dipshit?

  17. tckev says:

    It is the job of scientist to be skeptics.

    • T.O.O says:

      And the best way to accomplish that is to demand independent and factual evidence and to have the entire process open to the public.

      Why hasn’t anyone ever thought of this before?

      • gator69 says:

        Yes, where is that evidence dipshit? 😆

      • tckev says:

        The British Royal Society during the 18th, 19th, and for some into the 20th century were completely against it. They constructed their club of consensus scientist, promulgating the one true way, with it’s luminiferous aether, phlogiston, and the biology of bodily humours. The Royal Society of this day sought to (and some say they still do) maintain stability in science to the detriment of seeking truth.

      • tckev says:

        Any other method is to construct a magic circle, a religion of high priest, who will hand down the great ideas. This priesthood is almost what we have with the so many so called ‘climate scientists’ asserting that their prognosis is correct with little, or some times, no justification. The IPCC’s (unqualified) head, Pachauri, tries that all the time.

        • tckev says:

          At the top of this blog page is a quote
          “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman.
          That is a self evidential truth.

        • T.O.O says:

          Thanks for the history lesson. Thank goodness climate science isn’t practiced in this manner. EVERYTHING is in the public domain. The internet makes it easily available for anyone to download and review all studies. The IPCC allows anyone to become part of the vetting process and every organization has a website and outlines their research and methodology.

          Now back to your plan for making things better. . .

        • tckev says:

          EVERYTHING is in the public domain.
          The climategate scandal and the proceeding prove otherwise and show that a lot of the main players are not trustworthy operators. The IPCC in losing so many document, mostly from dissenting voices, over ther year shows that they are a best partial and at worst a nonscientific political only.

        • tckev says:

          oops too many typos but hopefully you get the message.

        • tckev says:

          One of those leaked emails from a Kevin Trenberth says –

          “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travisty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: butthe data is surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate”


          “It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system…This may be a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with climate, but we don’t”

          My point is that the structure of the research into climate change is not open, or honest. From those quotes and so many more show that a culture of mendacity and cover-up is rife.

  18. gator69 says:

    “The evidence:


    Does the stupid burn Michael? 😆

    Besides being proof of what extreme hypocrites the folks at SkS are for pointing out short term trends, this only shows the Earth warmed, and not why.

    Keep your ignorance to yourself Skippy! 😆

    • T.O.O says:

      Do you have factual and independent evidence for that assertion? Remember, other comments from other blog sites are not considered evidence (as per tckev and suyts new and improved science paradigm)

      • Latitude says:

        Laz, they claim to know the uncertainty….it’s the basis for all of their formulas

        …if you know the uncertainty….how can it be missing in the deep ocean

        because their math don’t work

        • T.O.O says:

          Could you expand on that please?

        • gator69 says:

          Dipshit, you have been shown chapter and verse where the IPCC admits they have a ‘low’ to ‘very low’ understanding of over 80% of IDENTIFIED climate forcings.

          Enough of the willfull ignorance you dope! 😆

        • Latitude says:

          Laz, their uncertainty 17 W/m2

      • gator69 says:

        OK, maybe TOOL can answer this. Does the stupid burn? 😆

        The entire Global Warming scam was based upon less than 17 years of warming, dipshit.

        You have had ample time to reach up your backside and produce just ONE peer reviewed paper refuting NV as the cause of recent or any global climate changes. What happened, did your hand get stuck with your head? 😆

        • T.O.O says:

          You first. You made said that the Trenberth quote was actual. Therefore, you should provide a citation.

        • gator69 says:

          Check your ass, while you are looking for that paper. It’s right there next to Truthdearth’s missing heat missile. 😉

        • tckev says:

          Peer-review is not proof of merit. Many papers have been through this process but are later revealed as worthless, and sometimes fraudulent.
          Peer-review does tend to stymie new and novel ideas, especially when they overturn long held belief and methodologies. In one manner they are a method of retaining a consensus. That is a known problem with the scientific system but it is the best they’ve got.
          Just saying…

        • gator69 says:

          Hey TC! Agreed. I just like pointing out the fact that the alarmists skipped step one of their investigation, ruling out the obvious. They knew they could not disprove NV and conveniently moved on to the next phase, naming a new driver of climate.

          I am more than familiar with Pal Review and how ‘Parrots have Degrees’, and herd mentality. But even with their carefully selected reviewers, they just could not get Mother Nature to be quiet, and buried her in BS.

      • tckev says:

        tckev and suyts new and improved science paradigm
        neither new or improved. It is what should always happen, and has been for decades.

  19. T.O.O says:

    So guys,
    We are back to beginning, arent’ we? A supposed Trenberth quotation headlines this blog — a quote that no one has been able to verify but is vehemently acknowledged by gator69 as being truthful. I provide another quote by Trenberth that is verified and I am attacked for it. Bob Tinsdale attacks the Trenberth study as being a model without data. I show Tinsdale the data and methodology that Trenberth used from the very same paper Tinsdale attacked. tckev believes that the current system used in climate science is broken and proposes an alternative that is strikingly similar to the one in place at the moment. However, he believes that scientists trying to create a consensus around the science is wrong forgetting that a consensus is what policy makers, acting on behalf of their citizens, require above all else. Throughout this entire saga, I haven’t made one assertion (other than the Trenberth quote I cited and that independent and factual evidence should be provided), but I am constantly blamed for not providing evidence behind issues I did not raise.

    And, after all that, the supposed headline quote from Trenberth still remains unverified.

    • Chewer says:

      On a side note, John Cook seems to be slightly unbalanced and Trenberth also knows that his assumptions/models are imaginary functions:
      His tallying is defined by himself, not the planet.

      So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy budget, tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the climate. A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 means the planet is accumulating 145 x 1020 joules per year. The following list gives the amount of energy going into various parts of the climate over the 2004 to 2008 period:
      •Land: 2 x 1020 joules per year
      •Arctic sea Ice: 1 x 1020 joules per year
      Ice sheets: 1.4 x 1020 joules per year
      •Total land ice: between 2 to 3 x 1020 joules per year
      Ocean: between 20 to 95 x 1020 joules per year
      •Sun: 16 x 1020 joules per year (eg – the sun has been cooling from 2004 to 2008)

      “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
      After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it’s apparent that what he meant was this:
      “Global warming is still happening – our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren’t able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!”

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        It isn’t a travesty, it’s a speechless moment.

        He seemed genuinely surprised when a quantity he calculated to three significant figures by taking the difference of six numbers uncertain to a single significant figure was not to be observed.

      • T.O.O says:

        I don’t see a connection. We have satellites that show two things (1) less energy is going into space than before and (2) the missing energy is at the same wavelengths absorbed by CO2. We also have empirical evidence to show that CO2 is a radiation trapping gas. Knowing these facts, Trenberth is trying to calculate where this extra energy is being stored or expended.

        What could be more logical?

        His email outburst to a colleague was based on his inability to pinpoint this missing energy. This eventually led him to conduct his ocean heat experiments. My reading of the paper (over the past few days) shows me that he was as thorough as he could be with the instrumentation and data that he had available. This particular branch of climate science needs plenty of upgrading.

        Are there uncertainties — of course. Did he talk openly about them — absolutely (otherwise this particular blog would not exist). Is further research required — what do you think?

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          The radiation that is observed by satellites that is escaping to space is approximated by a black body distribution centered at 288 K. The The distribution of the wavelengths that are longer than that and accounting for the heat that is lost from the Earth are at a much lower temperature and not to observed within the observed distribution (the tail end of the distribution).

          Refute that for us and come back and show everybody how smart you really are.

        • Chewer says:

          How about we have no idea what the temperature is at -1, -5, -15, etc.. right down to the core. wed also have sporadic ocean and surface temperatures and have no clue as to the forcing/stimuli that cause things like inter-glacial periods or ice advances.
          Our understanding of H2O in the troposphere and its mixing with organic, metallic and inorganic matter is about as good as measuring the filtering through the mesosphere..

        • T.O.O says:

          First of all provide the link to that paper so I can review it. Second of all, longer than what? “The The distribution of the wavelengths that are longer than that and accounting for the heat . . . .”

          CO2 absorbs infrared energy. It doesn’t absorb much energy at shorter or longer wavelengths, it’s just the infrared. That’s been known since the 1860s.

          Satellites have been keeping track of infrared radiation coming up to the from the Earth. Over the last 40 years, the amount of infrared energy (along the CO2 absorption spectra) has reduced. Not so much on the non-infrared wavelengths, though.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          You do understand, don’t you, that the IR detector on a satellite is partly cooled by space, and partly warmed to keep the electronics going. Thus the measured distribution is centered where it is. The error in the LONGER wavelengths is enormous and is not directly measured. There is no radiation “imbalance” of any sort. At least by conduction, the heat in the lower atmosphere is lost to the upper atmosphere within the time needed for CO2 to “warm” the lower atmosphere.

        • T.O.O says:

          this should have read “CO2 absorbs infrared energy. It doesn’t absorb much energy at shorter or BUT AT longer wavelengths, . .”

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          I don’t care if I die, TOO, I am not going to be controlled by the likes of you and your stinking filthy ilk.

        • T.O.O says:

          I am still waiting for your paper.

          And now you are saying you don’t trust satellites because there is a POSSIBLE issue with the IR monitoring? You don’t that the scientists are aware of this or that they haven’t compensated for it?

          So, let me get this straight. Even if I produce evidence that refutes what you have so unclearly tried to assert, you won’t trust the evidence because you don’t trust the instrumentation that produced it? Well, I will give you this, Brian,you have all your bases covered.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Go shove it up your ass and do a Heil Hitler at Barbara Boxer.

          Good night

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        You can’t keep this myth going, TOO. No matter how much you want this to be true, no matter how much meaning this myth gives to your life, no matter how titillating it must seem to you to control other people’s lives, you just can’t keep the myth going.

        No by the for of logic, you can’t. You just have to face the need for Nazi power to demonstrate the inferiority of certain races, rational thought be damned

        • T.O.O says:

          I am controlling you? I am trying to keep this myth going? For God’s sake Brian, I am only asking for factual evidence from people who make outlandish statements. Maybe we got off on the wrong foot — if I accept the possibility that the Earth will start spinning the opposite direction, will that appease you?

  20. Brian G Valentine says:

    As pointed out by Robert Wood a hundred years ago and continues to be ignored today, the problem comes in forgetting the obvious. If CO2 drops the temperature in the outer atmosphere and warms the lower atmosphere, the heat transfer rate between the lower and upper atmosphere has to increase, by conduction, and by the wavelengths that are NOT absorbed by any intermediary gas such as water and CO2.

    • Brian G Valentine says:

      Correction. It was 99 years ago.

      Can you believe that this pathetic farce has been ruining lives and economies for 99 years, and exponentially so for the past 10?

      • Chewer says:

        T.O.O. and his fellow followers must realize that 70% of the warming within the satellite period came during the 1982-83 & 1997-98 super El Nino’s and we do not understand their development, duration or depth of sign.
        C02 at the various monitoring stations tells us nothing about particle mixing at the greater heights and its interaction with the upper atmospheric tides…
        Trenberth gave up on Stratwarm anomalies and the difficult studies of the upper regions, maybe because he began to see things that didn’t agree with the AGW scam:)

        • T.O.O says:

          I would love to agree with you on all those points only I want to see some independent evidence first. Please point me to where that factual evidence can be found. Remember comment#446 on WUWT is not considered evidence (as per the tckev paradigm)

  21. gator69 says:

    Well, I guess we can add satire to the long list of things T.O.O.L. cannot understand. 😆

    And if course this too…

    “NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.”


    Yep. We have known for years that there is no imbalance, heat rises and escapes just like we were taught in grade school.

    Catastrophe discredited, go back to sleep. 😆

    “Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence.”

    Hey dipshit! YOU are the party making ridiculous claims, find papers to back them or STFU. 😉

    • T.O.O says:

      13 times in a 17 sentence article. That is how many times the word “alarmist” was used in your linked article. I am not sure, but I think that is some sort of record. Then I saw that it was penned by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute and I knew you had come prepared.

      What I found interesting is what it did NOT address and that would be the actual measured amount of escaping radiation at the CO2 wavelength which is known. What it DID address was the inconsistency of what has been measured to what the models had predicted BUT ONLY in one scenario. The “pure radiative” climate models are not consistent with what is predicted but the “mixed curve” is. “Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence.” — this hardly qualifies.

      “A recent paper by Spencer and Braswell (2011) explored the sensitivity of the surface temperature response to a forced radiative imbalance. They used observed shortwave and longwave radiation gathered from satellite measurements and calculated the net atmospheric radiation. They also used observed surface temperatures from the 2000-2010 time frame around the globe and calculated global monthly temperature anomalies relative to the average over the ten year period. Using these two time series, they correlate one versus the other using different time lags.

      Then they compared these observed values to the same variables gathered from the 20th century runs of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 3 multimodel data set. The authors choose the three most and least sensitive model runs, rather than using all of them. They also use the observed and model data to investigate the mathematical relationship for temperature change described above.

      When Spencer and Braswell (2011) set a ‘feedback’ parameter as described above, they demonstrate that only for pure non-radiative forcing and with no time lag can the parameter be accurately diagnosed in the model (Fig. 1). With radiative forcing and a 70/30% mix of radiative versus non-radiative forcing, the response was quite different. “In this case, radiative gain precedes, and radiative loss follows a temperature maximum, as would be expected based upon conservation of energy considerations.” They also find, more importantly, that the pure radiative forcing curve in Fig. 1 looks more like one produced using the data from the climate models, while the mixed curve looks more like that produced using the observed data.” : http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/sep/20sep2011a1.html

      “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

      • gator69 says:

        After 73 failures, dipshit thinks models are reliable, and proof! 😆

        “Then they compared these observed values to the same variables gathered from the 20th century runs of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 3 multimodel data set. The authors choose the three most and least sensitive model runs, rather than using all of them. They also use the observed and model data to investigate the mathematical relationship for temperature change described above.”

        When I was a boy, I had friends who made models of Frankenstein, Wolfman and the Creature from the Black Lagoon, but never once did I think that simplistic models proved their existence.

        Dipshit, where is that paper I have repeatedly asked you to produce, the paper that MUST exist if we are to claim NV is not what is driving climate change.

        What’s wrong? Can’t find one? 😆

  22. T.O.O. says:

    Why do you keep insisting I provide evidence for surface modeling when I have made no claim in regards to it? I did claim that satellites show less radiation leaving Earth at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 and I have provided both an explanation and a reference below.

    “Carbon dioxide forces the Earth’s energy budget out of balance by absorbing thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by the surface. It absorbs thermal infrared energy with wavelengths in a part of the energy spectrum that other gases, such as water vapor, do not. Although water vapor is a powerful absorber of many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy, it is almost transparent to others. The transparency at those wavelengths is like a window the atmosphere leaves open for radiative cooling of the Earth’s surface. The most important of these “water vapor windows” is for thermal infrared with wavelengths centered around 10 micrometers. (The maximum transparency occurs at 10 micrometers, but partial transparency occurs for wavelengths between about 8 and about 14 micrometers.)
    Carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of thermal infrared energy with wavelengths longer than 12-13 micrometers, which means that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide partially “close” the atmospheric window. In other words, wavelengths of outgoing thermal infrared energy that our atmosphere’s most abundant greenhouse gas—water vapor—would have let escape to space are instead absorbed by carbon dioxide”: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php

    And this website provides a simple breakdown of greenhouse gases, their proportion and their effects: http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

    Now, when can I expect to see a reference to that Trenberth quote?

    • gator69 says:

      “Carbon dioxide forces the Earth’s energy budget out of balance by absorbing thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by the surface.”

      Where is the proof of this alarmist statement?

      Dipshit, this is what I am talking about. Alarmists have proclaimed CO2 as the doom of humanity. Prove it or STFU.

      Look up ‘satire’, and have someone explain it to you. 😆

      • T.O.O. says:

        I understand satire but it is your aggressive insanity that I have trouble comprehending.

        PS Did you read my links?

        • gator69 says:

          I was a climatology student 3 decades ago, and have followed this scam from day 1. You have nothing new to offer.

          Where is that paper? 😆

        • T.O.O says:

          Is that supposed to impress me — that you have believed in a climate scam for 3 decades? Personally, I wouldn’t put that on my job application.

          When I make a declaration regarding climate models, I will provide a citation but based on your inability to understand the simple physical properties of CO2 I just provided to you, I wonder what the point would be.

          And as you made the first unsubstantiated claim (Trenberth mis-quote), I believe you should be the first to validate it.

        • gator69 says:

          Dipshit, I am not trying to impress anyone, I am trying to explain that you are a waste of CO2 and have nothing to add to the search for truth.

          Models are crap. We have demonstrated that time and again, you cannot model that which you do not understand.

          And where is that paper that refutes NV? Hmmmm?

        • T.O.O says:

          There you go again talking about models again like you have turrets syndrome.

          The only point I have continually made is this: When outrageous claims are made, then independent and factual evidence is required. My God, the way you guys have reacted to that extremely reasonable request is like I have asked you to sacrifice your first born sons

          If and when i wish to make a statement about surface temperatures models, rest assured that I will also provide a link (or 20).

        • gator69 says:

          “There you go again talking about models again like you have turrets syndrome.”

          Why is it leftists must always project, and lie. Every claim regarding CAGW is based upon models, so every time you make your extraordinary claims, you are referring to models.

          What part of that do you not understand you nitwit. 😆

        • T.O.O says:

          Is it a lie that you have mentioned the word “model” 20 times on this blog alone?

        • gator69 says:

          Wow! A word counter! I had one of those cyber stalking me a couple of years ago. What a nut! He also believed in CAGW, and told me that if Jesus were alive, he would strangle me. Do you have a brother named Harold?

          Every CAGW claim is based upon models.




          Bite me! 😆

        • T.O.O says:

          Every election, every medicine, every bridge, every prototype of any manufactured good, every new social program, every new freeway overpass are based on models. Every “everything” is based on models.

          Give it a rest, take a pill, chill out.

        • gator69 says:

          Quit conflating all models with climate modeling moron, I do not need you lies and straw men?

          Shall I rub your nose in it again dipshit?

        • Latitude says:

          Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods

          Click to access Meehl2011etalNCC.pdf

  23. Richard T. Fowler says:

    It’s models all the way down!

    At long last, have they no shame?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s