http://www.junkscience.com/blog_js/2...etter-than-co2

"...An R2 correlation of 0.83 would be considered “good”. This
indicates that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied
together than Co2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2."

/leebert

On Apr 30, 3:58*pm, wrote:
http://www.junkscience.com/blog_js/2...rend-pdo-and-s...

"...An R2 correlation of 0.83 would be considered “good”. This
indicates that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied
together than Co2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2."

/leebert

USHCN data only cover the Continental US, less than
1 and 1/2 percent of the globe. Come back when you
want to discuss GLOBAL warming.

On Apr 30, 6:13 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 30, 3:58 pm, wrote:

http://www.junkscience.com/blog_js/2...rend-pdo-and-s...

"...An R2 correlation of 0.83 would be considered “good”. This
indicates that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied
together than Co2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2."

/leebert

USHCN data only cover the Continental US, less than
1 and 1/2 percent of the globe. Come back when you
want to discuss GLOBAL warming.

Gee. I guess you didn't read the full article. They took Hadley CRUT &
MSU data & found the same trend.

Your ideological vainglory is showing.

It doesn't matter. What warming CO2 will contribute will largely
follow the basic logarithmic formula. It is being repeatedly shown
that WV feedbacks self-regulate and will continue to do so.

And if you take 40% off the top of the current warming to account for
tropospheric aerosol net heating (V. Ramanathan, Carmichael, et al,
2007, 2008) that the IPCC has failed to correctly ascribe for the past
FIVE years, that means that CO2's warming effect is even lower. This
is readily seen by the differential anomalies between the Northern &
Southern Hemispheres. Simply put, there are other net heating
mechanisms at play than just CO2, and the cumulative effect has been a
warming trend.

Even James Hansen has declared that he's stopped citing computer
climate models as being too unreliable. This was after Spencer's
latest paper showing the tropospheric discontinuity between observed
temperatures & the computer models. He's now citing only the boreal
thaw & the paleo ice core data. How politicized is it: When Ramanathan
found out how bad the Asian Brown Cloud was in 2003, the IPCC cut
funding at the behest of India & China. The truth has been suppressed,
pointlessly.

Here's some advice from a chap who's followed the AGW since the early
1980's (after I saw the glacial recessions back then): It's time to
moderate your views and go back to the library & read up on the latest
& newest studies.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/the_soot_files

wrote in message
...
http://www.junkscience.com/

k00k-a-d00dle-d0000!!!!

wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 6:13 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 30, 3:58 pm, wrote:

http://www.junkscience.com/blog_js/2...rend-pdo-and-s...

"...An R2 correlation of 0.83 would be considered “good”. This
indicates that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied
together than Co2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2."

/leebert

USHCN data only cover the Continental US, less than
1 and 1/2 percent of the globe. Come back when you
want to discuss GLOBAL warming.

Gee. I guess you didn't read the full article. They took Hadley CRUT &
MSU data & found the same trend.


"They" are well known long term denialist liars. You really damaged your
credibility here, chief.

On May 1, 9:54 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 30, 6:13 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 30, 3:58 pm, wrote:

http://www.junkscience.com/blog_js/2...rend-pdo-and-s....

"...An R2 correlation of 0.83 would be considered “good”. This
indicates that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied
together than Co2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2."

/leebert

USHCN data only cover the Continental US, less than
1 and 1/2 percent of the globe. Come back when you
want to discuss GLOBAL warming.

Gee. I guess you didn't read the full article. They took Hadley CRUT &
MSU data & found the same trend.

"They" are well known long term denialist liars. You really damaged your
credibility here, chief.

I know all about junkscience.com . They're a mixed bag, but they're no
more liars than Spencer, Christi or Singer. Contrarians, yes. Liars,
no. There's a difference, unless you want honest skeptics calling your
position that of a liar. The loudest contrarians may have an axe to
grind, and going up against a wall of conventional thinking is a
formidable task. And sometimes a stopped clock gets it right.

That little article doesn't exculpate CO2, really. Think about it,
what it says that for the time being, the PDO has been dominant. Who
knows? The next 20 years might see another 1 degr. C. heating. But
it's not looking that way.

The point to get out all this is that statistics can be made to say
anything. Roger throws around R^2 stats like it's a sure thing but
cherry-picks only sunspots counts, not total solar irradiance. Doesn't
matter whether he's right or not, the wrong data will only make an
argument look even more dubious.

Both sides in this are playing the same game regardless of the
shifting evidence, which *IS* shifting towards a more complex
situation with some CO2 warming following the standard logarithmic
curve, a minor buffer latency, minor WV feedbacks, a significant net
heating from aerosols (37%), and a significant centennial warming from
the boreal thaw (25% -- Hansen, 90% of which may be attrib. to soot,
C. Zender).

The old science is being rethought by newer science, and the new
science is the place to find out where the paradigm shifts on an
exception that proves a new rule. These new data *are* there if you
want to go find them. I've cited most of what's salient in the past
couple of weeks. The rest is up to you.

Politics *IS* a serious problem in this, but I see it now as less a
question of industrial apologists who'd rather not lose their
competitive advantage than globalists who want to defend Kyoto. If
some really convincing evidence came out for CO2's causing mild
warming, do you think the entire IPCC, UNFCCC and everyone invested in
carbon credits and renewables would be willing to accept it? Of course
not, but it's a hot new bandwagon that's vulnerable to change. It's
worse that the Kyoto / UNFCCC mechanisms encourage globalization,
which defeats the ostensible purpose of Kyoto.

Think: Carbon credit overheads impose costs on production in Europe.
European firms can either cut costs, become significantly more
efficient or off-shore production. Unfortunately when labor costs,
capital costs & taxes are already blunting a firm's competitive edge,
it's easier to off-shore production.

Off-shore where? To UNFCCC non-Annex developing countries who don't
carry carbon credit overheads, and in fact can sell carbon credits via
"clean projects" like dams, HCFC destruction and building new clean
coal plants. Yes, that's right, developing countries who rely more
than 50% on coal-fueled power generation get to sell credits based on
implementing new clean coal tech (conversion or new). To a skeptic
that last item could mean a lot of things... aha! The smoking gun! But
it makes sense if soot abatement is a primary concern.

The gotcha here is this: China's CO2 emissions per unit of production
is 40% higher than the global average. It's no surprise that China's
less efficient in energy use. That will change in time, but it
emphasizes a point: The Kyoto process is encouraging an increase in
emissions via global trade.

It certainly wasn't expected. But how much is it a problem? It's
already being talked about in high places in the EU & Japan. German
firms and labor are already screaming about it, and it'll catch on in
Japan, Australia & Canada soon enough. American steel firms are on it
too, but they're hoping to not have to deal with it. And if the
environmentalists catch on that it'll lead to a net increase in
emissions, then what'll they do? Yell at the PRC communists? Call for
tariffs and a carbon trade war (and yes, this is being discussed)?

And then we have Al Gore... a majority stake in a $5 billion
derivative fund based on the carbon credit market, Generation
Investment Mgmt. Al's now embarked on a $300million campaign to
convince we recalcitrant Yanks to get on the wagon. $300 million?
What's Al Gore's horse in this race? McCain's already saying he'll tax
gas, so why **** $300m down the hole on media campaigns? It doesn't
make sense unless Gore's financial interests are brought into this.

The same can be said of oil companies, steel firms, car makers ...
they have a vested interest in the status quo.

Both sides have a vested interest. And what does this do to the
science? It puts politics at the center of the science, not the other
way around. The IPCC exists to prove, not disprove, dangerous AGW. The
IPCC would never disprove dangerous AGW (such as moderate AGW).

Well, that's inverted science.

They cut funding on Ramanathan's soot studies, that's how "scientific"
the IPCC is.

So what the IPCC is really doing is defending the Kyoto & UNFCCC
system from the coming fight over carbon emissions, China, India and
global trade.

And we're in the middle of it trying to muddle through disparate
data.

/leebert

wrote in message
...
On May 1, 9:54 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 30, 6:13 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 30, 3:58 pm, wrote:

http://www.junkscience.com/blog_js/2...rend-pdo-and-s...

"...An R2 correlation of 0.83 would be considered “good”. This
indicates that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied
together than Co2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2."

/leebert

USHCN data only cover the Continental US, less than
1 and 1/2 percent of the globe. Come back when you
want to discuss GLOBAL warming.

Gee. I guess you didn't read the full article. They took Hadley CRUT &
MSU data & found the same trend.

"They" are well known long term denialist liars. You really damaged
your
credibility here, chief.

I know all about junkscience.com . They're a mixed bag, but they're no
more liars than Spencer, Christi or Singer.

Ah, but they are liars too.



Contrarians, yes. Liars,
no. There's a difference, unless you want honest skeptics calling your
position that of a liar.

That happens here weekly.


The loudest contrarians may have an axe to
grind, and going up against a wall of conventional thinking is a
formidable task. And sometimes a stopped clock gets it right.

That little article doesn't exculpate CO2, really. Think about it,
what it says that for the time being, the PDO has been dominant. Who
knows? The next 20 years might see another 1 degr. C. heating. But
it's not looking that way.

The point to get out all this is that statistics can be made to say
anything. Roger throws around R^2 stats like it's a sure thing but
cherry-picks only sunspots counts, not total solar irradiance.

No, I'm afraid not.


Doesn't
matter whether he's right or not, the wrong data will only make an
argument look even more dubious.

Both sides in this are playing the same game regardless of the
shifting evidence, which *IS* shifting towards a more complex
situation with some CO2 warming following the standard logarithmic
curve, a minor buffer latency, minor WV feedbacks, a significant net
heating from aerosols (37%), and a significant centennial warming from
the boreal thaw (25% -- Hansen, 90% of which may be attrib. to soot,
C. Zender).

The old science is being rethought by newer science, and the new
science is the place to find out where the paradigm shifts on an
exception that proves a new rule. These new data *are* there if you
want to go find them. I've cited most of what's salient in the past
couple of weeks. The rest is up to you.

Politics *IS* a serious problem in this, but I see it now as less a
question of industrial apologists who'd rather not lose their
competitive advantage than globalists who want to defend Kyoto.

Globalists hate Kyoto. It affects their anticipated profit margins.


If
some really convincing evidence came out for CO2's causing mild
warming, do you think the entire IPCC, UNFCCC and everyone invested in
carbon credits and renewables would be willing to accept it? Of course
not, but it's a hot new bandwagon that's vulnerable to change. It's
worse that the Kyoto / UNFCCC mechanisms encourage globalization,
which defeats the ostensible purpose of Kyoto.

Think: Carbon credit overheads impose costs on production in Europe.
European firms can either cut costs, become significantly more
efficient or off-shore production. Unfortunately when labor costs,
capital costs & taxes are already blunting a firm's competitive edge,
it's easier to off-shore production.

Already happening without carbon credits.



Off-shore where? To UNFCCC non-Annex developing countries who don't
carry carbon credit overheads, and in fact can sell carbon credits via
"clean projects" like dams, HCFC destruction and building new clean
coal plants. Yes, that's right, developing countries who rely more
than 50% on coal-fueled power generation get to sell credits based on
implementing new clean coal tech (conversion or new). To a skeptic
that last item could mean a lot of things... aha! The smoking gun! But
it makes sense if soot abatement is a primary concern.

The gotcha here is this: China's CO2 emissions per unit of production
is 40% higher than the global average. It's no surprise that China's
less efficient in energy use. That will change in time, but it
emphasizes a point: The Kyoto process is encouraging an increase in
emissions via global trade.

It certainly wasn't expected. But how much is it a problem? It's
already being talked about in high places in the EU & Japan. German
firms and labor are already screaming about it, and it'll catch on in
Japan, Australia & Canada soon enough. American steel firms are on it
too, but they're hoping to not have to deal with it. And if the
environmentalists catch on that it'll lead to a net increase in
emissions, then what'll they do? Yell at the PRC communists? Call for
tariffs and a carbon trade war (and yes, this is being discussed)?

And then we have Al Gore... a majority stake in a $5 billion
derivative fund based on the carbon credit market, Generation
Investment Mgmt. Al's now embarked on a $300million campaign to
convince we recalcitrant Yanks to get on the wagon. $300 million?
What's Al Gore's horse in this race? McCain's already saying he'll tax
gas, so why **** $300m down the hole on media campaigns? It doesn't
make sense unless Gore's financial interests are brought into this.

The same can be said of oil companies, steel firms, car makers ...
they have a vested interest in the status quo.

Both sides have a vested interest. And what does this do to the
science? It puts politics at the center of the science, not the other
way around. The IPCC exists to prove, not disprove, dangerous AGW. The
IPCC would never disprove dangerous AGW (such as moderate AGW).

Well, that's inverted science.

They cut funding on Ramanathan's soot studies, that's how "scientific"
the IPCC is.

Sorry, the IPCC did not do that.