[Truth To Power]

People can read your oisst and note the complete lack of any link to, or discussion of, actual science.

Again, that is just another bald falsehood on your part.

And this is true even if you accuse me of the same.

I don't accuse you of the same, but of much worse: hypocrisy.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, that is just another bald falsehood on your part.

I don't accuse you of the same, but of much worse: hypocrisy.

Another post without any science.

Thank you for confirming my point about you.

[Truth To Power]

Ask me nicely.

As you did with your, "Do it now"?

Sure:

Do it NOW, PoD. Got it? NOW.

[Truth To Power]

Another post without any science.

As befits a response to a post that contained only negations of science.

Thank you for confirming my point about you.

[Pants-of-dog]

As you did with your, "Do it now"?

Sure:

Do it NOW, PoD. Got it? NOW.

Since you are not asking me nicely, I will not.

If anyone else wants to see the study that proves Angstrom wrong, feel free to ask!

As befits a response to a post that contained only negations of science.

Thank you for confirming my point about you.

Another post without any science.

[Truth To Power]

No, you did not provide evidence.

Yes, I did. You just falsely and disingenuously deny that anything I post could ever be evidence.

At this point, your argument based on Angstrom’s findings can be dismissed based on a lack of evidence from you.

If your purpose is deception.

You also have not shown that there is any problem with Ms. Oreskes. Your ad hominem fallacy about her is also dismissed as nothing more than an insult from you.

Pointing out that she is a historian and not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist, is not an ad hominem fallacy, nor is it an insult. It simply shows that she has no qualifications as co-author of a scientific paper, and the paper's credibility is thus in question.

You do not seem to know what “context” means.

But I know what evasion, hypocrisy, strawman fallacies, equivocation, misdirection, disingenuous misstatements and deliberate obtuseness mean: Pants-of-dog.

Context is the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

In this case, you need to quote the paragraphs that precede, include, and follow the text you quoted.

Do that now.

OK, here:

2. Climate fluctuations past and present

The field of climatology has long recognized that climate varies on decadal and longer time scales. The concept of a 'climate normal' was introduced in the early 20th century as a 30 year record or average of climate (Arguez and Vose 2011). The 30 year period was considered necessary to smooth out at least some of the known large decadal-scale variations in climate. The various GMST datasets have used a 30 year 'climate normal' period as a baseline against which to calculate anomalies for similar reasons. The literature on climate variability and change has recognized episodes or periods of multidecadal GMST variation throughout the 20th century (Handel and Risbey 1992, National Research Council 1995). Thus, the notion of fluctuations in GMST is not new and has been recognized as a confounding factor in attributing causes of decadal-scale GMST changes in all the IPCC reports since their inception in 1990. For example, the 1990 report (Houghton et al 1990) noted that

'Because of long period couplings between different components of the climate system, for example between ocean and atmosphere, the Earth's climate would still vary without being perturbed by any external influences. This natural variability could act to add to, or subtract from, any human-made warming.' (Here, the reference to unforced 'natural variability' is equivalent to 'internal variability' in modern usage.)

And the 1995 report (Houghton et al 1996) noted that for projections of climate change,

'...decadal changes would include considerable natural variability.'

And that

'...natural climate variability on long time-scales will continue to be problematic for CO2 climate change analysis and detection.'

2.1. Present view of the present fluctuation

Given that climatologists were well aware that GMST fluctuates on decadal (and longer) time scales, the emergence of a claim in the climate literature from about 2009 that climate change as represented by GMST had entered a 'pause' or 'hiatus' was a strong claim. In effect, the claim was that the most recent decadal-scale fluctuation in GMST was somehow extraordinary or substantially different from past GMST fluctuations. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that the fluctuation was given a name ('pause' or 'hiatus') and with the claim frequently made in pause-papers that this fluctuation (but not others) was not consistent with the GMST response to increases in greenhouse gases (Lewandowsky et al 2016).

In order to assess the claims made about this particular fluctuation in the literature, we identified a set of 224 peer reviewed articles in the climate literature (through 2016) that referred to a 'pause' or 'hiatus' in GMST in the title or abstract. From this larger set, we constructed a subset of papers that defined a start and end date for any alleged pause, and which specified the GMST data used for analysis. This is the minimum amount of information needed to reproduce and test the claims of a 'pause' in these papers. The application of these criteria reduced the subset to 90 papers, which is the analysis subset used here and denoted 'pause-papers'. The number of papers published each year on the 'pause' is shown in figure 1(a) and rises substantially from 2013. The 'pause-research period' (as reflected by published papers) extends from about 2010 through the present.

Figure 1. Histograms summarising characteristics of 'pause' definitions in the literature. Panel (a) shows the number of pause-papers published in the peer-reviewed literature each year between 2009 and 2016. (b) Is a histogram of the set of start dates for the pause-period inferred from the pause-papers. (c) Is a histogram of the durations of the pause-periods inferred from the pause-papers. (d) Is a histogram of the pause-period, which shows the number of times each year in the year axis is included in the pause-period across all the pause-papers.

Note that the 90 'pause-papers' are the subset that refer to a climate 'pause' and that provide sufficient information to reconstruct the nominal notion of the pause for that paper (the period used and the GMST dataset(s)). Many of these papers presuppose the existence of a 'pause' and address issues that are conditional upon its existence, without necessarily providing their own analysis or evidence for the identified 'pause'. The purpose of this literature set is to allow us to develop a picture of what the GMST pause is presumed to be in the literature, capturing areas of diversity and commonality. Further, the set of 'pause-papers' allow us to be inclusive in capturing all the different definitions used for the pause in GMST in our analysis here. The set of papers are listed in the appendix.

There is no single or dominant definition of the 'pause' in the literature (Lewandowsky et al 2015b). Many papers are not explicit about the period used to assess the pause or the criteria used to reach the conclusion that there is a pause. The distribution of start dates from the pause-papers (set of 90) for the 'pause' is shown in figure 1(b). These span a range from 1995 to 2004 illustrating the lack of consensus on this issue. Further, there is usually little or no statistical justification offered for choice of the start-year. This is a critical issue which we return to in section 3.4. Similarly, the durations presumed for pauses in the pause-papers span a range from about 10 to 20 years with a median of 15 years (figure 1(c)). The number of times a given year falls into the period defined as a pause across all the pause-papers is shown by the histogram in figure 1(d). The frequency profile of the histogram reveals a 'pause-period' in the literature spanning roughly 1998–2015.

The pause-period was selected by the authors of pause-studies to correspond to a period where the rate of warming is slower than the average longer-term warming rate. This period can be highlighted and placed in context by showing a sliding sequence of short-term trends in GMST through the modern period (figure 2). By colour-coding the trends as red/blue according to whether they are warming faster/slower than the longer-term rate of warming, it is apparent that there are persistent periods of faster and slower than average warming. The pause-period in the pause-literature shows up as the second slower than average warming period on the plot. The identification of a period of slower than average warming does not suffice to demonstrate that such a period is statistically unusual. For that more formal criteria would need to be applied.

Figure 2. Time series of annual GMST anomaly from Cowtan and Way (stair plot). The black dashed line is a linear fit over the period. The thin red and blue lines are linear 11-year trend lines sliding over the period. These lines are red/blue when the slope of the 11-year fit is greater/less than the slope of the longer-term dash line. The choice of interval length here (11 years) is arbitrary, but all interval lengths used in the pause-papers will exhibit periods of faster and slower than average trend.

Different criteria have been used to constitute a 'pause' in the pause-papers. Most early papers employ it in a manner consistent with the common sense usage to signify an absence of a warming trend (no trend). Later papers, however, often use it to signify a reduction in the warming trend, i.e. a slower than normal trend. This shift in definitions, by itself, might indicate a problem, as it shows that even at the time, the scientific community was unclear and inconsistent as to what the object of study was. In this paper we test both claims. To illustrate these definitions we have redrawn figure 2 in idealised form in figure 3. Here, we represent the GMST series (without interannual variation) in its idealised form as undergoing regular fluctuations about a long-term mean warming rate (the dashed black line). The fluctuating line is again coloured red when the trend is greater (warming faster) than the longer-term mean trend and blue when it is smaller (warming slower) than the mean trend. One expects short-term trends to fluctuate faster and slower through time than the longer-term trend as illustrated here. There has been little research attention on the faster fluctuation that preceded the slower fluctuation that is the target of the pause-papers (Rahmstorf et al 2007, Lewandowsky et al 2015a).

That enough for you?

And your whole post did not discuss climate change at all.

Maybe because it was a response to your post, and you always try to change the subject, and refuse to address anything I say about climate change?

[Truth To Power]

Since you are not asking me nicely, I will not.

I said, NOW, PoD.

Got it?

NOW.

If anyone else wants to see the study that proves Angstrom wrong, feel free to ask!

As you know, there is no such study, only a despicably dishonest smear job from skepticalscience, one of the most dishonest climate websites on the Internet.

Another post without any science.

What an admirably accurate self-description.

[Truth To Power]

Another post without any science.

Because it was an answer to your post, which explicitly refused to engage with any science.

BTW, you still haven't answered the scientific questions I put to you, PoD:

Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that turning your thermostat down from 25C to 23C will nevertheless warm your house up from 20C to 22C?

Yes or no?

Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that it is the angle of the sun that causes July to be hotter than June, even though the sun is higher in June?

Yes or no? Answer the question.

NOW.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I did. You just falsely and disingenuously deny that anything I post could ever be evidence.

If your purpose is deception.

Pointing out that she is a historian and not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist, is not an ad hominem fallacy, nor is it an insult. It simply shows that she has no qualifications as co-author of a scientific paper, and the paper's credibility is thus in question.

But I know what evasion, hypocrisy, strawman fallacies, equivocation, misdirection, disingenuous misstatements and deliberate obtuseness mean: Pants-of-dog.

Maybe because it was a response to your post, and you always try to change the subject, and refuse to address anything I say about climate change?

All of this can safely be ignored because of the lack of any support for any argument.

OK, here:

That enough for you?

And how does this support any point you made?

As far as I can tell, you do not even remember what your claim was.

I said, NOW, PoD.

Got it?

NOW.

Since you are not asking me nicely, I will not.

I have noticed that you refuse to provide evidence when I or anyone else asks you politely.

You also refuse to provide evidence when people ask with the same rudeness that you display.

So I no longer waste time typing please since you refuse to provide evidence ho matter what.

As you know, there is no such study, only a despicably dishonest smear job from skepticalscience, one of the most dishonest climate websites on the Internet.

As a matter of fact, the skeptical science webpage that debunks your claim does have a link to the study that proves Angstrom wrong.

What an admirably accurate self-description.

Another post without any science.

Because it was an answer to your post, which explicitly refused to engage with any science.

BTW, you still haven't answered the scientific questions I put to you, PoD:

Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that turning your thermostat down from 25C to 23C will nevertheless warm your house up from 20C to 22C?

Yes or no?

Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that it is the angle of the sun that causes July to be hotter than June, even though the sun is higher in June?

Yes or no? Answer the question.

NOW.

No. None of these are arguments.

Turn these into arguments and I will address them.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
Koch and Ångström's 30 cm tube.
Even if the experiment had been done accurately,

There is no evidence it was not done accurately, and no one has ever produced a credible experimental result to the contrary.

it’s unclear whether they would have considered a one percent change in transmission significant since they already regarded their measured half percent change as insignificant.

A 1% change in IR absorption is definitely insignificant.

How it should have been done

No, what follows is a different and outrageously dishonest "experiment" that is completely irrelevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate.

Note how the proportion of light transmitted through a tube of CO2 goes down as the tube is made longer.

What changes as CO2 increases


CO2 saturation at 300ppm the pre-industrial level,


Quadrupling the CO2 adds new absorption bands, reducing the transmission of IR.

The above graphs would describe the situation if there were no water vapor or other GHGs in the atmosphere. But there is. The above is a good example of bad and dishonest science pretending that good, honest science is inferior to itself. Measuring the effect of different amounts of pure CO2 on IR absorption and pretending that is relevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate is like putting experimental subjects on diets consisting of different quantities of orange juice, and pretending that will measure the effect of doubling the amount of orange juice in a normal diet. It's just hilariously dishonest and disgraceful anti-scientific trash.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no evidence it was not done accurately, and no one has ever produced a credible experimental result to the contrary.

This is incorrect. I can think of at least one study off the top of my head.

I could probably find more.

A 1% change in IR absorption is definitely insignificant.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

No, what follows is a different and outrageously dishonest "experiment" that is completely irrelevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate.

Insulting scientists and their work is not a logical or intelligent rebuttal.

The above graphs would describe the situation if there were no water vapor or other GHGs in the atmosphere. But there is. The above is a good example of bad and dishonest science pretending that good, honest science is inferior to itself. Measuring the effect of different amounts of pure CO2 on IR absorption and pretending that is relevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate is like putting experimental subjects on diets consisting of different quantities of orange juice, and pretending that will measure the effect of doubling the amount of orange juice in a normal diet. It's just hilariously dishonest and disgraceful anti-scientific trash.

Your argument is that the layer of atmosphere closest to the Earth is saturated with CO2 and therefore there cannot be any effect on climate.

You seem to be making a similar assumption to the one you are criticising as unscientific, in that you are making an unsupported assumption between the supposed cause and the significance of the impact on the climate.

The difference is that instead of supposedly assuming a large effect, you are assuming no effect at all. To do this, you have to ignore all sorts of science, and so you do.

Would you like me to repeat some of these things you are ignoring?

[Truth To Power]

All of this can safely be ignored because of the lack of any support for any argument.

Because it proves your claims are false, not that mine are true. Duh.

And how does this support any point you made?

I already explained that. You were just demanding more and more context as a way of evading my argument. Remember?

As far as I can tell, you do not even remember what your claim was.

Despicable.

Since you are not asking me nicely, I will not.

You won't because you can't.

I have noticed that you refuse to provide evidence when I or anyone else asks you politely.

I have noticed that you repeat that false claim no matter how many times I provide evidence.

You also refuse to provide evidence when people ask with the same rudeness that you display.

You also repeat your false claims no matter how many times I prove them false.

So I no longer waste time typing please since you refuse to provide evidence ho matter what.

Disgraceful.

As a matter of fact, the skeptical science webpage that debunks your claim does have a link to the study that proves Angstrom wrong.

No it doesn't. There is no such paper.

So, another post from you without any science.

None of these are arguments.

Yes they are. They are examples of the Socratic method of argument whereby the truth is elicited by asking questions of the other party.

Turn these into arguments and I will address them.

No you won't. They are already arguments, and you refuse to address them. It's always the same.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because it proves your claims are false, not that mine are true. Duh.

I already explained that. You were just demanding more and more context as a way of evading my argument. Remember?

Despicable.

You won't because you can't.

I have noticed that you repeat that false claim no matter how many times I provide evidence.

You also repeat your false claims no matter how many times I prove them false.

Disgraceful.

No it doesn't. There is no such paper.

So, another post from you without any science.

Yes they are. They are examples of the Socratic method of argument whereby the truth is elicited by asking questions of the other party.

No you won't. They are already arguments, and you refuse to address them. It's always the same.

None of this is about climate science.

None of this is even clearly written and requires looking back at posts you made pages ago to decipher.

You cannot even tell me what your claims are at this point.

[Truth To Power]

This is incorrect. I can think of at least one study off the top of my head.

No you can't.

I could probably find more.

You can't find any. I know this, because you haven't posted anything but a despicably dishonest smear job from skepticalscience.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

I did. You ignored it and falsely claimed I had not provided it. It's always the same with you.

Insulting scientists and their work is not a logical or intelligent rebuttal.

That trash was not produced by scientists and is not scientific work. It is a deliberate attempt to pretend that bad, dishonest science is superior to good, honest science.

Your argument is that the layer of atmosphere closest to the Earth is saturated with CO2 and therefore there cannot be any effect on climate.

No it isn't. You cannot state my argument accurately because you refuse to know the facts I identify or engage with the evidence I provide. You just falsely claim I never provide any.

You seem to be making a similar assumption to the one you are criticising as unscientific, in that you are making an unsupported assumption between the supposed cause and the significance of the impact on the climate.

You have proved you cannot even state my argument accurately because you refuse to know all facts that I identify, and claim I have not provided evidence when I have.

The difference is that instead of supposedly assuming a large effect, you are assuming no effect at all. To do this, you have to ignore all sorts of science, and so you do.

Again, that is a false characterization of my argument. I correctly ignore irrelevancies and bad, dishonest science such as the trash ingliz posted.

Would you like me to repeat some of these things you are ignoring?

I have no interest in repetitions of your false and disingenuous claims about my views, sorry. I explained why the graphs ingliz posted were bad, dishonest science pretending to be superior to good, honest science. Either address my argument or admit you have nothing relevant to contribute.

[Pants-of-dog]

No you can't.

You can't find any. I know this, because you haven't posted anything but a despicably dishonest smear job from skepticalscience.

I did. You ignored it and falsely claimed I had not provided it. It's always the same with you.

That trash was not produced by scientists and is not scientific work. It is a deliberate attempt to pretend that bad, dishonest science is superior to good, honest science.

No it isn't. You cannot state my argument accurately because you refuse to know the facts I identify or engage with the evidence I provide. You just falsely claim I never provide any.

You have proved you cannot even state my argument accurately because you refuse to know all facts that I identify, and claim I have not provided evidence when I have.

Again, that is a false characterization of my argument. I correctly ignore irrelevancies and bad, dishonest science such as the trash ingliz posted.

I have no interest in repetitions of your false and disingenuous claims about my views, sorry. I explained why the graphs ingliz posted were bad, dishonest science pretending to be superior to good, honest science. Either address my argument or admit you have nothing relevant to contribute.

Then clearly state your argument and I will address it.

You claim to be a clear writer. Please show us how clearly you can write out your argument. Thanks.

[Truth To Power]

None of this is about climate science.

Because it is a response to a post of yours that was not about climate science.

None of this is even clearly written and requires looking back at posts you made pages ago to decipher.

It is all perfectly clear; you just choose to evade it. The context problem is an artifact of the posting system, which does not automatically nest responses. Your consistent refusal to engage with arguments, context deletion, and constant demands for "evidence" of even the most obvious facts -- like the fact that a 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant -- do not help.

You cannot even tell me what your claims are at this point.

Here's one: you are a disgraceful waste of perfectly good electricity and my valuable time.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because it is a response to a post of yours that was not about climate science.

It is all perfectly clear; you just choose to evade it. The context problem is an artifact of the posting system, which does not automatically nest responses. Your consistent refusal to engage with arguments, context deletion, and constant demands for "evidence" of even the most obvious facts -- like the fact that a 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant -- do not help.

Here's one: you are a disgraceful waste of perfectly good electricity and my valuable time.

Insulting me is also not an intelligent rebuttal.

If you cannot support your claim that 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant, then there is no reaason for others to assume your arguments are true.

Angstrom’s experiment was wrong in several ways:

For example, his experiment did not look at convection at all, and assumed the only heat transfer was through heat radiation. This is, of course, wrong. Especially when we look at climate or weather. Wind happens.

[Truth To Power]

Then clearly state your argument and I will address it.

Again, one very simple one:

Measuring the effect of different amounts of pure CO2 on IR absorption and pretending that is relevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate is like putting experimental subjects on diets consisting of different quantities of orange juice, and pretending that will measure the effect of doubling the amount of orange juice in a normal diet.

You claim to be a clear writer. Please show us how clearly you can write out your argument. Thanks.

Which part of the above do you find unclear?

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

If, for the sake of argument, the global mean surface temperature is rising.

Water vapour and how it affects temperature

Assuming that the relative humidity - the expression of water vapour content relative to the saturation concentration - would remain the same with a changing climate.

As the temperature of the Earth rises, the saturation vapour pressure of the atmosphere rises following the Clausius–Clapyron relationship. If the natural world has an average relative humidity of 80%, the warmer world will also be 80% saturated, but since the warmer air can hold more water vapour, it holds 80% of a higher concentration, the absolute humidity rising proportionally to the saturation value.

The effect of water vapour on climate is, therefore, to amplify a temperature change.




Edited to keep it simple

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, one very simple one:

Measuring the effect of different amounts of pure CO2 on IR absorption and pretending that is relevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate is like putting experimental subjects on diets consisting of different quantities of orange juice, and pretending that will measure the effect of doubling the amount of orange juice in a normal diet.

Which part of the above do you find unclear?

This is clear, but it is not a scientific argument.

It is, at best, a poorly written metaphor with an implied argument.

Are you arguing that measuring the effect of different amounts of pure CO2 on IR absorption and pretending that is relevant to the effect of CO2 emissions on climate, as Angstrom did, is incorrect?