[BeesKnee5]

. The report -- by multiple eminent scientists -- that references Starr and Oort (and scores of other papers) is therefore evidence for the consensus independent of the Starr and Oort paper.

Can't you see that the whole premise of the WUWT spreadsheet is supposedly to list research papers.

In your own words you are having to accept that one of the items listed is no such thing. They have simply trawled for anything that fits a narrative to get a different result.

The study put forward in WUWT was looked at and of the additional papers added to prove cooling, only one was found to be a genuine research paper subject to the same scrutiny as those in the 2008 study (Wahl 1968).

[Truth To Power]

Congrats, you found one.

"On a longer time scale, certain decades have striking
and anomalous characteristics, such as the severe droughts that affected
the American Midwest during the 1870's, 1890's, and 1930's and the
high temperatures recorded globally during the 1940's."

p 126


"I. THERMAL MAXIMUM OF 1940s "

p 130


"Global- or hemisphere-averaged indices such
as the surface temperature index shown in Figure A. 6 are often used for
this purpose. This index clearly suggests a worldwide warming begin-
ning in the 1880's, followed by a cooling since the 1940's."

p 148


"The well-documented warming
trend of global climate beginning in the 1880's and continuing until the
1940's is a continuation of the warming trend that terminated the
Little Ice Age. Since the 1940's, mean temperatures have declined and
are now nearly halfway back to the 1880 levels."

p 181


"Estimation of the phase of each sinusoidal fluctuation (indicated by
the estimated dates of the last temperature maximum in Table A.3)
permits an assessment of the sign and magnitude of the contribution of
each fluctuation to the total rate of change of globally average tempera-
ture in the present epoch. The sum of these individual contributions
( -0.015°C/yr) agrees reasonably well with the observed rate of change
of — 0.01°C/yr during the past two decades, as determined from
analyses of surface climatological data by Reitan ( 1971 ) and by Budyko
(1969)."

p 183


Do you understand? I have pwned you.

Doesn't matter, the science has not only moved on, it's gotten thousands of times better.

The instruments have got better, but the scientists have been replaced with frauds and hucksters.

We have freaking climate change satellites, supercomputers, and enough money to do research that they didn't even dream about back then.

True: enough money to buy desired results.

You're faking it badly.

I have owned you.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, the report references many other studies. That is why it represents the consensus.

No. That is false. If the point at issue were the content of Starr and Oort -- that temperature declined from the 1940s to the 1970s -- it would be counting the same study twice. But that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is whether there was a consensus that temperature had declined from the 1940s to the 1970s. The report -- by multiple eminent scientists -- that references Starr and Oort (and scores of other papers) is therefore evidence for the consensus independent of the Starr and Oort paper.

Nope. Wrong. Refuted above.

Oh I see.

You are making a huge deal out of something that is irrelevant.

But I am interested in the fact that you define this as a consensus. If you were logically consistent, you would then agree that modern climatologists have come to a consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real.

How does your irrelevant factoid relate to global warming?

[BeesKnee5]

Nope. Flat wrong. I am old enough to remember the 1970s, and scientists in the 1970s found unanimously that the earth had been cooling since the 1940s. That unanimous finding has since been retroactively altered to agree with anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda.

Just to highlight the original point.

The 2008 study showed that the majority of scientists in the 1970s believed the future trend was warming.

The WUWT study showed that the majority of scientists in the 1970s beleived global temperatures had cooled during 1940-1970 (even allowing for the gerrymandering). It did not find this view to be unanimous and as the decade progresses, the less support for cooling appears in the dataset.

Whilst this is a fun game to play, the two studies do not actually contradict each other.

The point is also about what scientists beleived at the time not what was actually found to be true once all the data was available. For example, quoting a paper from 1965 will not answer the period up to 1970.

So just look at the data, 1940s were warmer on average than the 1930s, 1950s and 1960s. However 1957-1963 were not dissimilar to 1940s temperatures and by 1970 global temperatures were on a par with the 1940s. Across all the datasets this is borne out with a 0.2C margin of error. Clearly someone with a motive would instead draw a line between the hottest year in the 1940s and the coldest year in the 1950s to claim a 0.4C cooling but I expect most would understand how disingenuous that would be.



It also shows there is little doubt about whether the earth has been warming since the 1970s and is continuing to warm.

Obviously you won't acknowledge this because anything not fitting your preconception must be seen as false.

[late]

I have owned you.

Are you actually so delusional you think you have done something?

You can't find where the game is played, you keep demonstrating you don't know the rules, or have the ability to play the game if we did show you where to go.

[late]

"False. I studied planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university."


The Climate Sceptic was an actual physicist, who had a website disputing climate science. At least he did until the Koch brothers paid him to review the entire science of climatology.

But he did the work to review it, and, of course, found the same thing climatologists have been finding for decades.

I lost interest in why trolls do what they do a decade ago. But that's what you are doing.

[Hindsite]

Are you actually so delusional you think you have done something?

You can't find where the game is played, you keep demonstrating you don't know the rules, or have the ability to play the game if we did show you where to go.

Oh I understand now. This climate change scam is just a game to you. You never really believed that crap at all.
Praise the Lord.

[late]

Oh I understand now. This climate change scam is just a game to you. You never really believed that crap at all.

I learned about climate research when I took a math modelling class in the 80s. Been following the science since then. The fight in the 90s (about how and why) was incredible.

Science is a game. But it's not just a game, and it doesn't require belief.

[Truth To Power]

Can't you see that the whole premise of the WUWT spreadsheet is supposedly to list research papers.

Where does it say that? It simply lists credible sources that support the consensus view of cooling in the ~1940-1970 period.

In your own words you are having to accept that one of the items listed is no such thing.

Strawman fallacy. No one said all the sources supporting the consensus were from peer-reviewed papers.

They have simply trawled for anything that fits a narrative to get a different result.

That's clearly false.

The study put forward in WUWT was looked at and of the additional papers added to prove cooling, only one was found to be a genuine research paper subject to the same scrutiny as those in the 2008 study (Wahl 1968).

Where do you get this nonsense? I've asked you to support your claims with evidence, and you have not done so.

[BeesKnee5]

Where does it say that? It simply lists credible sources that support the consensus view of cooling in the ~1940-1970 period.

Strawman fallacy. No one said all the sources supporting the consensus were from peer-reviewed papers.

That's clearly false.

Where do you get this nonsense? I've asked you to support your claims with evidence, and you have not done so.

Ok, pick another one and we will play the same game again.

Look at the title on the dataset. It doesn't say credible sources. It specifically claims they are research papers.

[BeesKnee5]

Ok, pick another one and we will play the same game again.

Look at the title on the dataset. It doesn't say credible sources. It specifically claims they are research papers.

Sod it I'll pick one for you

Ellsaesser 1974

Not a research paper but a talk done at a symposium
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7273062

The speaker mentions cooling
'the particulate increases were usually cited as at least contributing to the post 1940 cooling '

He doesn't say the earth has cooled over the period 1940-1970, only that it cooled after 1940.

This is jumped on as evidence there is cooling, however the scientists argument is actually to say he beleives observations show CO2 is offsetting particulate pollution and this isn't adequately being taken into account.

'Of the climatic problems raised, the CO2 one is best understood. There is essentially universal agreement that atmospheric CO2 is increasing as a result of the consumption of fossil fuels and that this should enhance the 'greenhouse' effect leading to a warming of the planetary surface. The strongest support for the upward trend in air-borne particulates derives from the failure of observational data to support our understanding of the CO2 effect. Yet no one ever hears the argument that man might consider a deliberate increase in particulates to counter the CO2 effect'

So not a research paper and actually arguing that there is universal agreement that the rise in CO2 should lead to warming.

[Truth To Power]

Oh I see.

You are making a huge deal out of something that is irrelevant.

No, you are.

But I am interested in the fact that you define this as a consensus. If you were logically consistent, you would then agree that modern climatologists have come to a consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Of course. Everyone knows anthropogenic climate change is real -- oops, sorry, that was another exaggeration: there are no doubt a few people who don't. The questions revolve around how much of climate change is anthropogenic and specifically caused by CO2.

How does your irrelevant factoid relate to global warming?

It shows the dismissal of natural causes is premature and not consistent with actual climate history.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you are.

Of course. Everyone knows anthropogenic climate change is real -- oops, sorry, that was another exaggeration: there are no doubt a few people who don't. The questions revolve around how much of climate change is anthropogenic and specifically caused by CO2.

It shows the dismissal of natural causes is premature and not consistent with actual climate history.

Now you are creating a strawman: that natural causes have been dismissed.

Anyway, now that you have conceded that anthropogenic climate change is real, how much of the current global warming is due to human production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

[Truth To Power]

Not a research paper but a talk done at a symposium
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7273062

So another proof that your claim was false.

The speaker mentions cooling
'the particulate increases were usually cited as at least contributing to the post 1940 cooling '

But the particulates were also mainly from fossil fuel consumption.

He doesn't say the earth has cooled over the period 1940-1970, only that it cooled after 1940.

Nit-pick. It implies cooling SINCE 1940 -- i.e., from 1940 to the time of the symposium.

This is jumped on as evidence there is cooling, however the scientists argument is actually to say he beleives observations show CO2 is offsetting particulate pollution and this isn't adequately being taken into account.

IOW, ASSUMING that both CO2 and particulates are having major effects that just happen to cancel out, rather than taking the responsible view that neither is having much effect.

'Of the climatic problems raised, the CO2 one is best understood.

Hah! Not by anti-CO2 hysterics it isn't.

There is essentially universal agreement that atmospheric CO2 is increasing as a result of the consumption of fossil fuels and that this should enhance the 'greenhouse' effect leading to a warming of the planetary surface.

But HOW MUCH warming? Modest and mostly benign, or the earth burns to a cinder in 12 years? That's where consensus is absent.

The strongest support for the upward trend in air-borne particulates derives from the failure of observational data to support our understanding of the CO2 effect.

That is a BLATANT QUESTION-BEGGING FALLACY. Disgraceful, anti-scientific trash.

Yet no one ever hears the argument that man might consider a deliberate increase in particulates to counter the CO2 effect'

Actually, this has been mooted.

So not a research paper and actually arguing that there is universal agreement that the rise in CO2 should lead to warming.

But only the modest amount observed before the systematic alteration of thermometer readings to agree with anti-CO2 hysteria propaganda.

[late]

I see the troll is still busy.

[BeesKnee5]

So another proof that your claim was false.

Seriously?
This is evidence that the title of the dataset which claims to be research papers actually is nothing of the sort.

Nit-pick. It implies cooling SINCE 1940 -- i.e., from 1940 to the time of the symposium.

You are adding your own interpretation. He says after 1940, if I said there was cooling after 1998 that would not mean I am saying is cooler today. If he had meant SINCE, he would've said since. That there is dispute over the one line that led to it's inclusion shows how flimsy this evidence is.

IOW, ASSUMING that both CO2 and particulates are having major effects that just happen to cancel out, rather than taking the responsible view that neither is having much effect.

'
In other words not supporting cooling but suggesting a period when the effects were neutralised.

Hah! Not by anti-CO2 hysterics it isn't.

You realise you are arguing with the comments by someone from nearly 50 years ago who is saying rising CO2 is expected to cause warming

That is a BLATANT QUESTION-BEGGING FALLACY. Disgraceful, anti-scientific trash.

Anti scientific now that it's been shown to have been included as evidence of cooling by a dodgy source and turns out to be not quite what it was portrayed to be.

But only the modest amount observed before the systematic alteration of thermometer readings to agree with anti-CO2 hysteria propaganda.

I've asked for evidence to support this and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

We are back were we started, you provide evidence to support your point. That evidence turns out to not support your claim and so you dismiss it as fake anti-science.

I have another example lined up of you can stomach it. Turns out the 'research' is a book review where the author of the article offers no opinion other than to repeat the claims of the book.

How's that recent Angstrom experiment coming along. I've shown you a recent attempt to replicate it and you say it's been done hundreds of times using modern equipment, so when will you be sharing one that disproves the example I provided?

[BeesKnee5]

I see the troll is still busy.

Still going strong. His straw clutching gets more desperate by the day.

[Truth To Power]

Ok, pick another one and we will play the same game again.

You picked one, we played, and I won again. Do we begin to see a pattern here?

Look at the title on the dataset. It doesn't say credible sources. It specifically claims they are research papers.

I'm looking at the title. I invite all readers to do likewise. I don't see the word, "research." It's just "papers," which could mean a variety of different things including literature reviews, reports, conference presentations, etc., but is certainly not restricted to research papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Why did you feel you had to make $#!+ up again?

[BeesKnee5]

You picked one, we played, and I won again. Do we begin to see a pattern here?

I'm looking at the title. I invite all readers to do likewise. I don't see the word, "research." It's just "papers," which could mean a variety of different things including literature reviews, reports, conference presentations, etc., but is certainly not restricted to research papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Why did you feel you had to make $#!+ up again?

Just what did you win? That the articles added are not of the same standard as those from the original research paper that they are supposedly being compared to?

The bigger point is many of those added aren't even papers. They are simply added to distort a picture. Perhaps they should've included children's books and newspaper articles as 'papers'. I'm sure if you asked a scientist what they define as a paper it would not be a speech or a book review. The reason is simple, when you are doing research and refer to papers you are talking about scientific papers and not some woolly definition of what you think a paper is. This point was actually made in the original 2008 research, they included in their paper a list of popular literature, some of which appear in the WUWT 'papers' dataset, here is an example


I'd also at this time point out an article that the WUWT didn't include from the period they studied. If this isn't included but others are then you start to wonder who decided what should/shouldn't be and why.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... p6/a536518


So we come down to you beleiving something that is scientifically worthless because it's been designed to fit your narrative.

[Truth To Power]

Now you are creating a strawman: that natural causes have been dismissed.

That's not a strawman. It's a plain fact. That's why they had to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period (and Little Ice Age).

Anyway, now that you have conceded that anthropogenic climate change is real,

I have stipulated from the outset that human activities indisputably have some effect on climate. To now claim that is a "concession" on my part is false and disingenuous.

how much of the current global warming is due to human production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

Much less than the amount of current global warming that is due to dishonest manipulation and outright falsification of temperature data.