Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Revie

cartoonist? are you still going on about the same guy who has a physics degree but has a website design company? ...unlike anthony watts who has no degree in anything...

 

Actually they have not been doing that - mostly it has been attacks against Cook and his colleagues

 

What research do you think Mann was citing?

 

And I think there is also a large straw man here

But tell me what part of "Average" is Anthony Watts having problems with?

 

The fact that there are very few temperature stations there today has not impeded Dr Hansen (formerly of GISS) from repeatedly saying it's the fastest warming place on the planet.

 

Well certainly not something from a blog that only shows a small proportion of the globe

 

I believe Mann was addressing the same geograhic area.

So you assume the data was made up?

 

Hmmmmm - yes and if you look we are using satellite data

 

Ah ha, the hole in the CAGW theory. Thanks for uncovering it!

- - - Updated - - -

No, just talking about the cartoonist.

- - - Updated - - -

Well thanks for re-defining critique.

 

No I am saying that your source - Anthony Watts ALWAYS cherry picks data. America does not equal the rest of the globe and everyone who insists it does gets this award



Only you could colour the rest with "no temperatures here" "plenty of forest there" and "no hurricanes outside of AMERICA!"

 

A) Did no such thing because this has always been an accepted fact in the science
B) Must be a different person then because the John Cook who runs Sceptical Science has a degree in physics and mastered in Solar Physics as well as being the Climate Science Communications Fellow for the University of Queensland
C) Gave you a definition of Critique - you have not fulfilled that definition (and the joke - there is something out there that would)

 

OK. I'm assuming that other poster is me.
But the point is that GW is more than just the warming of the atmosphere. The phrase "Global Warming" is used because that's where the warming originates; from the longwave radiation that is prevented from radiating back into space from the atmoshere. That retained energy does not remain in the atmosphere but is transferred to the soil, water and ice. When determining if the earth's climate system is warming , that energy can't be ignored; which is what the pseudo-scientists are doing when they claim that there has been no warming in xxx years. The energy of earth (soil, air, ice, water) is increasing even though the air temperatures may not be.

 

Missed this one
But you didn't answer the most important one:
If the furnace is kept off and no heat escapes, what will happen to the air temperature? Why?
The answer is that the air temperature will decrease because the energy in the air will transfer to the furniture & water.

 

I do not believe that is true. GISS uses ground station data. RSS uses satelite data. And the two data bases are diverging rapidly for northern latitudes.

 

Sorry, but I dispute that representation of "global warming" as used by proponents of AGW up until recently. It's always been atmospheric temperature. And from rising atmospheric temperatures all of the catastrophic affects and "climate disruption" amd "climate change" results. As I indicated earlier by all of the cites of the definition, it was about atmospheric temperatures. That's what the "Hockey Stick" was all about; that's what the reduction of CO2 is all about; and it's what the supposed "hot spot" in the troposhere is all about.

If you wish to change the hypothesis to include all energy transfers, then I suspect you are exchanging a difficult hypothesis for one much more difficult.

But I do have a serious question. If as you say, the earth's energy is increasing during the years that most folks (even Drs Jones and Trenberth) concede that global temperatures have been insignificantly different statistically, where is that energy coming from? You tacitly admit it isn't from atmospheric temperatures and I agree. So what is the energy source that is being transferred to soil, water, and ice?

 

The 2 databases are diverging because RSS does not include the poles in their data. (go here and click on Northern Hemisphere 0>>82.5) The divergence is evidence that the poles are warming quicker than the tropics; a prediction of AGW theory.
And it looks like your "Notrickzone" is tricking you. Actual graph from http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html


Note the latitude numbers and the trend value

 

Any warming will always be greater at higher lattitudes but you are wrong about the "poles" warming quicker as it is only one pole that warmed.

 

And 31,487 American Scientists disagree with your 9,139 scientists. BTW, the original IPCC report was peer-reviewed, but most of the claims included in the report have been debunked. So, if a scientist "A" takes a dump in a paper bag. He then gets a group of fellow scientists to sigh off that the contents in the paper bag is proof of global warming. What does he have? A peer-reviewed piece of crap.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

Something interesting about the 97% of scientists agree with global warming from John Cook.

It was a poll taken by volunteer AGW bloggers of papers written by scientists and not a poll of the scientists themselves. The actual data is not available from Skeptical Science for verification.

 

Hmmm - a blog called "no trick zone" Oh! Well!

So let us see what Roy Spencer says (remember he is a sceptic)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07...n-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

Now having set a blog standard I will answer in same vein

http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/food-for-tamino-while-looking-at.html



Oh! and

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

 

Finally got around to Critique - good and wrong http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

Data IS available

 

The fact that in the Atlantic, hurricane intensities have NOT increased, in fact they have decreased:

 

Carefull, as soon as the realise they will blaming AGW for reduced cyclone activity.

 

You still find no problem of Warmist volunteers from the site as the arbiters of what other scientists published using a politically charged scale for the output. Papers which were not opinion pieces but about science then presented by Skeptical Science as their opinions? This is the problem with propaganda sites like Skeptical Science.

Arguing about a blog site like (un) Skeptical Science and the shenanigans that the owner of the site is like arguing whether Jesus had an inny or and outy. It is a site that allows no discourse and it is a clearing house for warming alarmists. That you have been taken in by such nonsense without ever checking the background of the site or what they have done with it says much about your own blind acceptance without any discernment.

 

Could you define "Accumulated Cyclone Energy" for us?