Open thread – Winter 2014/2015


For any climate related discussion – please be civil and minimize repeating yourself. It’s okay to agree to disagree.


52 Responses to “Open thread – Winter 2014/2015”

  1. namnack Says:

    A question for Bart and other Dutch representatives here,

    I’ll try to be as concise and translucent as humanly possible :)

    I’m frequently appalled by the lack of media coverage concerning global warming/climate change in the Dutch press (I’m Dutch as well). Though there seems to be a slight upturn in coverage in the past half year, I get the distinct impression the issue is, at least to some extent, avoided.

    When I do see GW/CC addressed, the articles often confuse terminology and show a lack of proper understanding of even the basics of climatology. For instance, recently I read the claim that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, discounting water vapour, due to a translation error. There are far more grating examples, but one gets the idea.

    My question is: what are your views on the (quality of) reporting in Dutch newspapers concerning global warming/climate change.


  2. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Hi Catherine,

    I guess last time you asked this question it wasn’t answered indeed. I’m not impressed with the reporting on climate change in NL or abroad (as far as I follow it; can’t read everything). That said, there are big differences in quality. For example, the recent discussion on Dutch TV with several scientists and stakeholders, facilitated by Marcel van Dam (Achterkant vh Gelijk), was very good I thought. Reporting in the quality newspapers (e.g. VK, NRC, Trouw, …) is often quite good, but they have more and more fallen victim to false balance in recent years. See also

    Under the heading “media” on both this blog and my Dutch (group)blog you’ll find much more about my views on and reactions to media reporting.

  3. citizenschallenge Says:

    C, In your other comment you seem confused about “climate change” vs. “global warming” – You see both are accurate. We are warming our global heat distribution system and that in turn is accelerating climate change. Yes, climate has always changed, for millions of years now it’s been a little up, a little down, but these days we are forcing that system into an absolutely radical departure from what this Earth has experienced in millions of years. Yes I did say many millions. Those that think I’m wrong, I invite them to produce some evidence (not lip flapping, but citable evidence) that I’m exaggerating.

    Now about your question regarding the difference between CO2 and H20’s respective contribution to global warming. The thing about water vapor is that it’s atmospheric concentration is a function of the temperature and it washes out of the atmosphere quite rapidly. Whereas CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a long, long time so it (along with its greenhouse gas companions) are the dominate drivers of warming. (think insulation). SkS does a much better job of explaining:

    Happy learning, CC

  4. citizenschallenge Says:

    Bart, thank you for providing this platform for sharing thoughts. I’ve run out of time this evening, but hope you don’t mind me plugging this link. In the near future I’ll get into more details… who knows maybe there’s a discussion in it.

    “Food For Thought”
    A collection of recent attempts to examine contrarian tactics and the challenge of communicating with those who don’t want to hear.

    1) Secret Life of Trolls Part 3: Hoyt’s Showdown – examined
    {Rosi did something most hide from and for good reason. Going face to face with a contrarian, a long time insurance exec no less, a man who’s got the domination thing down, not to mention the tactical speaking skills, is a formidable challenge. Rosi broke the ice, I want to build on that with this long winded review. Besides my own learning exercise, I want to share it with anyone interested in better understanding climate science contrarian tactics. …}

    2) Trollus Maximus, HoytC, Secret Life of Trolls #1 examined
    {a look at the May 2013 video}

    3) Considering the demarcation between valid science and pseudo-science {regarding Massimo Pigiucci’s “Nonsense on Stills” and his take on Karl Popper, etc.}

    No contrarian tactics here, just scientists shooting themselves in the foot and doing future society a great dis-service…
    4) Colorado Floods – statistical certainty vs geophysical realities
    {regarding the Western Water Assessment (WWA), Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) hour and a half long videoed web news conference on the Sept 2013 torrential downpour event in Colorado.}

  5. citizenschallenge Says:


    I posted a video over at “Is Climate Science falsifiable?”
    then I accidentally reposted it..
    It’s a kick ass to the point graph-ic demonstration.

    “2014 On Pace for Hottest Year”

    Today I went back to YouTube in order to grab the embed code again, then embed it into a blogpost of mine. I mean that video nails it and it’s worth spreading far and wide. That’s what my ‘kiosk of information’ blogging approach is all about. I always give full credit and links back to original sources.

    Back to the point: I didn’t notice this the other day, now I did, there’s a message: ” ! ! This video is unlisted. Be considerate and think twice before sharing ! ”
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    I went to their website, but dang makes it hard. Nothing straight forward and clear getting me to simple contact info and emails addresses. No luck so I’m bringing it to you.
    :- )

    “This video is unlisted.” ? ?

    What’s that about ?

    Did I bump into something that’s still in quarantine and not released? Or is it a copyright issue,
    {in which case I wish, they’d offer some contact info for requesting permission.}
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    I’m giving you a heads up,
    perhaps you can look into it?
    >> The duplicate, should get deleted for sure.
    But, perhaps both, though it would be nice to know why.

    thanks and cheers.

  6. OPatrick Says:

    The lack of reporting on climate change is appalling everywhere, I suspect, not just in the Netherlands. Very worryingly I had a conversation with someone today who had asked a representative at the BBC to try and get the For the love of… campaign mentioned on Autumnwatch but was told (to this representative’s frustration and, they said, the frustration of most involved in BBC Nature) that the mention of climate change was strongly discouraged except where absolutely necessary.

  7. citizenschallenge Says:

    Bart, this morning I came across a new article in the AmericanThinker by Paul Murphy, awful piece of writing and even worse thinking/rationalizing – so I wrote a critique and a part of nails some thought’s that I been trying to get together for this thread – so here you go.

    …, skepticism is a joke without an honest desire to learn; keep in mind one directional skepticism, equals denial.

    Skepticism is about asking questions and wanting answers and being open to best information available, even when that information steps all over pervious understanding/belief. It’s not about winning or ego, it’s about learning. Skepticism is about not fully trusting anyone, not even yourself. Skepticism is about weeding though nonsense and allowing legitimate evidence to dictate what one trusts.

    Why do … folks think understanding our climate system deserves such malicious contempt? What’s wrong with seriously understanding what’s happening within this biosphere and climate system that we all depend on for everything?

    Later … quips: “So let’s face facts here: almost all claims in the global-warming show (both pro and con) are disputed. …”

    Yo …, What’s contemptible is when your objections are fabrications and misrepresentations that depend on repeating meaningless talking-point-lies over and over – and then driving home your distraction with personal innuendos that have nothing to do with understanding the geophysics of what we are doing to our one and only home.

  8. Nick Tedesco Says:

    Why isn’t there more discussion about air pollution when climate change is brought up? Is it assumed that we are talking about the same thing? If so, the public can more easily get behind the idea that no one likes air pollution.

  9. Tom Fuller Says:

    I was just dropping by to wish Bart a happy holiday season but couldn’t resist looking at Google News when I saw comments here about lack of coverage of climate change. Looks like several hundred articles written on the subject in the past 24 hours. Isn’t that enough?…0.0…1ac.1.tGTQH2PLYpo&gws_rd=ssl#q=climate+change&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:d

    Anyhow, I’m finally out of the China censorship zone (hello from Taipei!) Bart, I hope you and your family have the happiest of holiday seasons. I may be here a while so I might be back to annoy you with my lukewarmer spiel…

  10. OPatrick Says:

    No, that’s not enough – but it’s not about quantity primarily, it’s the way in which climate change is reported and the prominence it is given. Climate change is not integrated into reporting as a whole. Economic and energy analysis still frequently barely makes mention of climate change.

  11. Tom Fuller Says:

    By coincidence, I was reading the Lonely Planet guidebook to Taiwan this morning, OPatrick and found a section on transportation that had a nice section on the climate impacts of carbon emissions on the various modes of travel available in Taiwan. I honestly think you’re mistaken about the prevalence of news and information regarding climate change.

  12. citizenschallengeYT Says:

    We need more of this:

  13. Peter Maidment Says:

    Hi Bart,

    As a non-scientist I’m not sure my question even makes sense . After watching your video interview where you explained how the radiative forcing of CO2 accounts for more than 100% of warming since 1950, but aerosols offset some of the potential warming. While that makes sense to me, I started wondering about the influence internal variability could have on global temperature (I understand how internal variability could have a hemispheric or regional influence on climate.) . It occurred to me that as the surface warms the efficiency energy is radiated to space increases (I’m thinking of Stefan-Boltzmann) which would indicate a low sensitivity or at least a diminishing effect, but internal variability would not be able to raise global temperature unless sensitivity were high, without the feedback, a warming surface would cool more efficiently. Which would make the argument that internal variability drives global warming somewhat paradoxical, sensitivity can’t be both low and high? Perhaps there is a threshold? Am I thinking about this the right way or am I completely off base and is there a simple way you could explain this?


    Peter M

  14. Mike M. Says:

    Peter M.,

    Your question is very logical but overlooks the potential effects of the ocean. The heat capacity of the ocean is something like 1000 times that of the atmosphere. So fluctuations in the transfer of heat to/from the ocean can potentially have a significant effect on the atmosphere even without strong feedbacks. Such fluctuations do happen. The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMDO) cause large shifts in the distribution of sea surface temperatures which in turn have global climatic consequences.

    There are a couple of mechanism by which those oscillations affect climate. One is that the redistribution of sea surface temperature alters ocean-atmosophere heat exchange. That seems to be a popular explanation among climate modelers for the “pause” in global warming. The second is that the oscillations alter patterns of cloudiness. Clouds absorb something like 30 times the IR as anthropogenic CO2. They also reflect a similar amount of visible and UV light into space. Whether individual clouds cause warming or cooling depends on where and when they form. So changes in cloudiness patterns can have significant global climatic effects.

  15. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Peter M.,

    I think what you’re saying makes a lot of sense. I’ve made much the same argument before (as have others):

    Internal variability in the climate system usually arises from a redistribution of energy between the different subsystems (e.g. between ocean and atmosphere via the type of couplings mentioned by Mike M.). If through these semi-random variations the earth’s surface heats up, the earth will also lose more energy to outer space (governed by Stefan-Boltzmann as you say: E~T^4). As a result the earth will cool down. In other words, this provides a powerful negative (stabilizing) feedback and prevents small variations in surface temperature from growing out of control.

    If on the other hand the surface temperature is raised due to a radiative forcing (a change in the balance between incoming and outgoing energy), the temperature increase is a way for the earth to achieve equilibrium again between incoming and outgoing energy fluxes (a higher surface temp causes more outgoing energy, via the same E~T^4, until it’s equal again to the incoming energy).

    The radiation balance thus is a strong constraint on surface temperatures (or actually on the effective radiation temperature of the planet, but that’s linked to the surface temp via the lapse rate).

    The magnitude of temperature variations induced by internal variability is influenced by many factors, climate sensitivity being one of them, as this governs the extent to which a small change in redistribution of energy is amplified. Here the point raised by Mike M. is relevant: Even a relatively small energy transfer from ocean to the atmosphere can increase atmospheric temperatures by an appreciable amount, and it’s very hard to tell to which extent the temperature increase is due to the initial energy transfer or due to amplifying feedbacks. Another factor is the timescale of response: How fast does the temperature increase or decrease, relative to the timescale of the dampening response due to Stefan-Boltzmann? But I think it’s safe to say that, all other things being equal, a high climate sensitivity would increase the amplitude of temperature variations from internal variability.

  16. Peter Maidment Says:

    Thanks Bart and Mike M,

    I think I have a clearer understanding. Upon further thought and a little more reading and your explanations, it seems logical that while internal variability might for example raise atmospheric temperatures through transfer of heat from the ocean and perhaps feedbacks, this would necessarily mean a loss of heat content from the ocean, which has not been observed, further more, if there was a positive feedback response to internal variability, then a similar feedback response would also be expected for an external forcing such as an increase in greenhouse gasses.

    Also because internal variables oscillate between warm and cool phases, long term warming trends would be very difficult to explain through internal variability alone, although short term fluctuations could be. But, a cool phase in the oscillations Mike mentioned, would explain (at least partially perhaps?) a slowdown in an externally forced warming trend, which presumably at some point will flip back to a warm phase and then I guess we could expect a period of rapid surface warming as a result of external forcing and internal variables acting in concert instead of against each other. In much the same way aerosols negate some of the potential greenhouse gas warming as Bart explained in the video interview.

    Now I wonder what role the dampening role of Stephan-Boltzmann has on these varies oscillations and whether an external forcing might alter the “natural” progression of these oscillations. It’s an interesting question, but I’m sure the answer is complex and I don’t feel quite quite ready to delve too deeply into that at this point.

    I realise there are probably still many complex issues I do not yet understand, but I have a better appreciation of how some of these mechanisms while at first look seem paradoxical but really are consistent with what is being observed in our warming world. It is obviously an extremely difficult task communicating complex science to the general population, but I have found this website and others like it to be very insightful, especially, the short video interviews Bart posted.

    Thanks for your time,

    Peter M

  17. citizenschallenge Says:

    Bart, I “appreciate” your feedback regarding the YouTube video:
    2014 On Pace for Hottest Year

  18. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Very nicely animated graph of global avg temperatures.

    And by now it’s official: 2014 is the new record warm year since measurements started over 130 years ago, beating previous records 2010 and 2005 by a small margin. What matters of course is not the exact ordering of records, but the long term trend, which is still going up. Good collection of quotes from scientists on this record warm year here:

    e.g. Gavin Schmidt:

    “This is the latest in a series of warm years, in a series of warm decades. While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases.”

  19. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Hiya Bart–hey, when you’ve got a minute can you wander over to and answer my questions there? I’ve found something that seems a little weird. Probably an easy answer to it but… Just whenever you have time. Thanks.

  20. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Hiya Bart, thanks for the explanation–much appreciated and I updated my post to call attention to what you wrote. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

  21. Willard Says:

    Specialists in survey methodology might need to give a hand to Richard before it’s too late:

    Please help our research by taking this survey […]


    Having a list of what Joe got right about C13 might be nice. I stopped counting after his first seven blunders, e.g.:

    Being 0/7 is quite improbable.

  22. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Bart, as long as I’m in basic learning mode, can you answer another question?

    What I always read is that the carbon sinks of the world absorb about half of our emissions of CO2. Seems natural, logical.

    What I don’t get is why the sinks can absorb 4 million metric tons of carbon when it is half of an annual emission of 8 million tons (as in 2005), but fail to absorb the same 4 million tons when it is 100% of the total (as in 1970).

    Can you explain a bit for me?

  23. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Good question.

    The ocean carbon sink depends on the concentration difference w.r.t. pre-industrial. The land sink is more complicated and depends besides on this same conc difference also on changes to the growing season, excess nitrogen, rainfall, etc. In general, the land sink is much more variable than the ocean sink.

    If the emissions would suddenly double, the sink would thus not double in lockstep, but would lag behind, depending on how the concentration develops. If the emissions are rising steadily, and so does the concentration, then the time evolution of both may look similar by coincidence, but physically it’s the conc difference with pre-ind that’s the driving force behind the sink strength.

    In the 70s the CO2 conc was 330 ppm, i.e. 15% above pre ind. In the 2000’s it was 380 ppm, 26% above pre-ind, i.e. almost double in terms of conc difference. And the sinks as a result also approximately doubled. The emissions may have approximately doubled over that period as well coincidentally.

  24. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    Hi Bart, Okay–thanks for this. Do you have any recommendations for further reading on this specific topic? Hopefully not in Dutch… :)

  25. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Some textbook chapters that are on-line: (quite heavy on the chemistry) (Global Carbon Project)

    IPCC AR5 Ch 6:

  26. thomaswfuller2 Says:


  27. Bill Nicholson Says:

    What is the average temperature of the Earth supposed to be?

  28. citizenschallenge Says:

    All depends on what kind of biosphere one believes Earth should be experiencing. For my own tastes, the past few thousands of years has been fairly perfect – the Pliocene epoch not so good for us or a complex society.
    But, the real problem is the transition from one to the other.

    But what I really came here for was to share:
    ~ Was 2014 Really “The Warmest Year in Modern Record” ~
    January 19, 2015
    Good info along with some excellent videos –

    Off topic to temp “records” but very cool video:
    NASA | Greenland’s Ice Layers Mapped in 3D

  29. cjaneway Says:

    Hi all,

    For some reason notifications weren’t delivered to my email account, I thought the thread was dead as I didn’t receive any replies to my former question.

    In any case, here’s a belayed response..

    @Bart December 3

    Although I stopped watching TV years ago, I saw the episode of De Achterkant van het Gelijk on, I think, YouTube. Though it wasn’t as dreadful as one might have suspected, I thought the seriousness of the matter was still hugely played down as to conform to viewer expectation, which is of course what my initial question/post was all about.

    I’m now thoroughly convinced that most people -in the Netherlands anyway- see this issue as something that’s been exaggerated and the consequences of which will be stretched out over several centuries rendering it an issue they feel is not their problem. that is, if they even acknowledge the issue; so many are not. The cognitive dissonance I experience when bringing this issue up at E.G. the work place, is almost unbearable; it’s just too Kafkaesque.

    I occasionally survey my dad on GW as he gathers his information solely from mainstream news outlets and if he’s any indication, we are completely stuck in the denial phase. I’m not sure what better reporting could even accomplish at this point.

    @citizenschallenge, December 5

    Thanks for explaining the distinction, but I’m fully versed on this topic and I never implied to support any argument that goes along the lines of an ever changing climate. I can’t even remember asking a question about the difference between CO2 and H2O in regards to their respective roles in the greenhouse effect. CO2 is a forcing agent, water vapour is not since it’s always in equilibrium with its environment; it’s just a feedback and the net contribution of it to the overall effect may even be negative.

    In short, thanks for your reply, it is certainly appreciated, but let’s commit to a certain level of basic, mutual understanding of the issues at hand.

    @Bart January 20

    Wouldn’t that be 36%? What’s your starting point?


    As I’m sure most here are familiar with the work of guy McPherson; I was wondering if the following article to which both Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt contributed should be regarded as a step towards the stance McPherson has been laying on us for years..

    Obviously McPherson makes way too precise predictions based on no calculations at all (but then again, he’s not a climate scientist), though I would prefer his approach to the almost lacking reporting in the mainstream media, but when I read the article, I just couldn’t help but think of McPherson.

    Bart, you’re a regular on RC. Have the contributors there been too harsh on McPherson in terms of his predictions (not his methodology)?

    Kind regards and apologies for the belayed response,


  30. citizenschallenge Says:

    OK, excuse me.

    Speaking of climate sensitivity have you seen this yet?

  31. Bart Verheggen Says:


    Whereas contrarians misapply labels such as ‘alarmist’ or ‘doomsayers’ to the scientific mainstream, I think those labels would arguably fit Guy McPherson. Michael Tobis makes a strong case that McPherson goes way over the top in some of his predictions. McPherson is the mirror image of some climate contrarians in terms of how far his views are removed from the mainstream I would say.

    To your initial point: The consequences of climate change will indeed be stretched out over several centuries rendering it an issue many feel is not their problem. In other words, the problem is that it’s not our problem.

  32. cjaneway Says:


    McPherson is a charismatic man who takes advantage of his status emeritus as a former professor in what could be perceived as a relevant field of study. I love watching him go off on the, what is it, 30 self-reinforcing feedback loops we have engaged which he never actually mentions in his talks. He’s like a street preacher and boast about his moniker Dr. Doom. He’s like a SF B-movie with Tom Cruise or Brat Pitt. But the current mainstream projections do tend to go towards what McPherson predicts than the other way around. I’m sure he views this as an acknowledgement.

    As far as GW being a problem that’s not our problem, I’d say that paints a more rosy picture than what is currently going on. I haven’t seen any polls taken on a representative Dutch population (if you know of some, please let me know), but I get the distinct feeling it’s not even considered a problem by most. The reactions I gather when I bring the subject up varies from disbelief to a case for willful exaggeration (that ridiculous funding argument). The otherwise intelligent people who perceive GW this way, don’t realize they are making statements without knowing anything at all about climate dynamics, not even the basics. It’s based on what they read in some newspaper or on the Cartoon netwo.., I mean the discovery Channel.

    And yes, GW is mostly an ethical issue. No one on this Earth actually asked to be born and that goes for future generations as well. The Survival of the Species instinct, if there is such a thing, obviously operates on the shorter term. With all the horror that’s going on in the world, I’m actually on the fence regarding this ethical dilemma when approached rationally. Live and let die?


    Thanks for the link, it was a nice read. I hadn’t stopped by SS in a while. I reckon that paleoclimatology in respect to Climate Change is like paleontology to the Evolution ‘debate’ :)

  33. thomaswfuller2 Says:

    I’m feeling discouraged today. Maybe McPherson is right…

  34. cjaneway Says:

    Well, you shouldn’t be discouraged just because of some blog post. You should be discouraged because of a lack of counter evidence to the claim made in that post.

    This is why mitigation is such a problematic topic on for instance You just can’t run the numbers on scenarios that just haven’t played out yet. All we can do is look at the situation now, look at our collective resolve and notice we are in a serious bind here.

    McPherson did say that all the alternative, low CO2 emitting energy sources that are added to the mix, do nothing more but produce that which is needed to take on the growth in energy demand. In his mind, the solution is simple: cut down demand by crashing our current standard of living arrangements AKA our economies. Anything else, save for a deux ex machina subterfuge, is doomed to fail.

    Wasn’t it a Chinese curse that said: May you live in interesting times?

    I’m getting me one of these..

  35. citizenschallenge Says:

    A little off topic here. But this is the open thread.
    How about that ScienceofDoom and his Denialist spiel?

    “The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof”
    February 4, 2015 by scienceofdoom

    I think SoD is missing the big picture and I’ve tried to dissect and examine SoD’s blindspots and to share links to supporting evidence.
    Summary of key points worth considering:

    Why trust scientists?
    Political leaders and public’s right to learn without malicious interference!

    Serious science is not about “tolerance of diversity”
    Science is about pinning down the facts as well as possible
    and always learning.

    Good prima facie evidence?
    Syria, conflict and drought?
    Do full bellies dictate a people’s sense of wellbeing and satisfaction?

    It’s not about relying “only on what others are telling us.”
    It’s about trusting a huge community of experts
    who keep each other honest !

    Moral “equivalence” and coming catastrophe.
    What is Catastrophic Climate Change?

    Tuesday, February 23/24, 2015
    “Denying denial at Science of Doom #1 Florifulgurator’s comments”

    #1c “… Flori’s comments” only links

  36. cjaneway Says:


    I skimmed the article and initially failed to get the gist of it. The text is poorly structured and the writing style unappealing. Not to mention the irrelevant comparison between an historic event and multidisciplinary science.

    Your list of links however is a nice collection to throw at deniers. But they wouldn’t be deniers if they had the willingness to click on them and read the content behind them.

  37. citizenschallenge Says:

    ” writing style unappealing.”
    Sorry am what I am, but I’m still working on it.
    Besides, this was a dissection of a long running blog comments exchange between multiple characters.
    A thing of beauty it’ll never be.

    Besides, this isn’t intended to be beautiful prose to convince anyone. Those who want to learn, know how to do it, and that is by absorbing as much information as possible – rather than coming up with a 1,001 excused to ignore evidence.

    I’m writing for those few who think like me, but are younger, newer to the game. Folks who are looking for some tips about understanding the game that the Republican/libertarian PR machine is playing at.
    Back to the poor prose, hope to compensate for that failing with other “writing styles’ – let me know how I do with this one.

    Friday, February 27, 2015

    Considering the silliness of Dr. L.W. at SoD #1

    L.W. wrote February 12, 2015 at 1:26 am:
    “I started out conditionally accepting the AGW position because many experts claimed it was so. …”
    ~ ~ ~

    CC: Well there’s the first mistake. How about this:

    I started out learning about our Earth in high school (early 1970s) science classes, that led to the atmosphere, which inevitably led to learning about AGW. The instructors with their text books (consensus) laid out the fundamentals of our atmosphere and how greenhouse gases behave. That is, by allowing short-wave ultra-violet rays enter and warm Earth’s surface and then catching the outflowing long-wave infrared rays. Or more accurately slowing down their escape.

    We also learned about the incredible amounts of fossil fuels our society (we) were burning. This stuff was/is increasing our atmosphere’s Heat Retention Ability. That extra CO2, plain and simple was going to warm our planet. Like putting on extra layers of clothing when you’re already comfortable. Simple down to Earth logic!

    This atmospheric property doesn’t turn on and off at will. So when an incredibly complex globally (actually, excluding polar regions) averaged surface temperature data set jogs up and down or stays down a little longer than most expected, I understood the place to look was within natural and manmade variability, and the measurements. not in pretending that the physics of greenhouse gases had gone on a vacation so that global warming could go on a “hiatus”. …
    …. and so on and so forth. ; )

  38. citizenschallenge Says:

    excuse the multiple typos, hit send a tad too soon.

  39. cjaneway Says:

    I’m confused..

    You were talking about a blogger called ScienceOfDoom who I thought you determined to be a denialist by saying he was engaging in a Denialist Spiel. Poor phrasing perhaps? A Spiel, as far as I know, is defined as a persuasive argument/piece/speech et cetera. Not to be confused with the word ‘Spielerei’, both from the German language.

    I take it that you were either talking about yourself in the third person and have some MPS issues or that you thought you also posted a link to one of your own articles, which you didn’t. You only posted a link to a page with links. I was of course referring to the SoD article, not to anything up on your own blog.

    Having only skimmed it, I took the SoD piece to be sarcastic in that it presents evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activity in a way that deliberately attempts to overwhelm the unsuspecting reader by dropping graphs and formulas without context or any useful explanation. By doing this, it turns the article into one big, cloying mess to a casual layman, who may be swayed into thinking that anything that ‘complex’ can’t possibly represent settled science.

    Anyway, I have years of experience in reviewing texts, so if you’re serious about wanting feedback on the article you did post a link for, do let me know. The offer does come with a customer safety advisory notice; I’m extremely harsh and have been accused of wearing an SS uniform when it comes to grammar, syntax and of course general structure, which is often erroneously considered to be a matter of style preference.

    Typos in forum commentaries I shall not emphasize ;)

  40. citizenschallenge Says:

    CJC writes: “You were talking about a blogger called ScienceOfDoom who I thought you determined to be a denialist by saying he was engaging in a Denialist Spiel. Poor phrasing perhaps? A Spiel, as far as I know, is defined as a persuasive argument/piece/speech et cetera. Not to be confused with the word ‘Spielerei’, both from the German language.”

    Perhaps it’s my german background – I’ve tended to see “Spiel” as someone trying to get one over on you. Please do suggest a more appropriate word for ‘bull poop artist talk’.

    As for offer help – if you wish to offer critique I hope you can be a lot more clear than the riddle that is ¶2 ( although perhaps you were writing that for your own satisfaction, rather than to explain anything.
    Incidentally, what’s MPS?
    ¶3 could use more clarity of who’s article you are talking about when.)

    But, fair enough, let’s see what you got.,
    or perhaps right here.

  41. citizenschallenge Says:

    cjaneway Says: “I take it that you were either talking about yourself in the third person and have some MPS issues or that you thought you also posted a link to one of your own articles, which you didn’t.”
    ~ ~ ~

    CC: Oh dear, I can be slow on the up take sometime. MPS, got it.
    Now, I’ve always wondered this, does that sort of demeaning narrative somehow give you a feeling of intellectual superiority?

    Why not stick to the specifics of what I wrote?

    Why you gotta make it personal with fabricating nasty assumptions, that sound more like school yard bullying, than any sort of learning process?

    Also, I tested that link at CC “March 4, 2015 at 02:33” and I know where it goes, right to the above pasted text (if Bart lets it come through moderation), so what are you playing at here?

  42. citizenschallenge Says:

    pssst, cjaneway, about “spiel” [Noun]
    A lengthy and extravagant speech or argument usually intended to persuade.
    A fast excuse or sales pitch. –

  43. cjaneway Says:


    What I wrote is entirely unambiguous to someone with C1 or higher English comprehensive reading skills and a bare minimum of reflection.

    On top of not understanding to what article I was referring when there strangely only was one article in question (how could you possibly have thought I was talking about an article by you?), you have now entirely misread the MPS remark and based an uncalled-for reply on that misapprehension.

    No personal offence intended, but I didn’t come here to take people by the hand through the most basic of English. And I certainly wont be set up for insult as a result of someone’s reading issues.

    This thread’s cold anyway, I won’t be checking back.

    Viel Glück mit deinem blog.

  44. citizenschallenge Says:

    haha, you’re another hoot. Who cares if the “thread’s cold.” Your offer was to me – between us don’t you know. But as usual after a grand entrance, nothing, push a little, then insults and superiority provides a great cover for youz-types to run and hide behind.

    Und immer mit Augen und Ohren geschlossen.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    May as well leave this with some thoughts worth considering

    Political, business leaders and the public has a right to learn
    about climate science without malicious interference!

    Serious science is not about “tolerance of diversity”
    Science is about pinning down the facts
    as well as possible
    and always learning.

    It’s not about relying on
    “only what others are telling us”
    It’s about trusting a huge community of experts
    who keep each other honest !

  45. cjaneway Says:

    I was going to leave it alone, but then I read this:

    “Also, I tested that link at CC “March 4, 2015 at 02:33″ and I know where it goes, right to the above pasted text (if Bart lets it come through moderation), so what are you playing at here?”

    Lord have mercy..

    Do you honestly expect me to believe that you think I responded to a post you hadn’t even made yet? Is your real name Dr. Emmett Brown? How drunk must a person be to not get the order of a chronologically presented thread in which the only two persons that are posting are me and yourself? That’s more than just a little wacky..

    And how do you think you come across to others when you parade such an Epic Fail and merrily proceed to be a total jerk, fully oblivious to something I already took two paragraphs to explain to you.

    If you don’t want to take it from me or conclude it from your own ridiculous blunder, download Dialang from the Lancaster University or Leiden University website and test your comprehensive reading skills. Perhaps it can humble that bloated ego of yours a bit.

    “Und immer mit Augen und Ohren geschlossen.”

    That must be the dumbest remark I’ve ever read considering what came before, unless you were talking to yourself, which you certainly are from this point on.


  46. citizenschallenge Says:

    cjaneway wrote “March 6, 2015 at 00:16 you honestly expect me to believe that you think I responded to a post you hadn’t even made yet? ” ~~~

    Hmmm, I supplied a link along with the first couple paragraphs… leaving the curious to link to the entire text.

    Your odd remark inspired me to post the entire text (which Bart was kind enough to let through moderation) of that post originally referred to 3/6/15-00:16.

    March 4, 2015 at 22:57 cjaneway wrote: “Anyway, I have years of experience in reviewing texts, so if you’re serious about wanting feedback on the article you did post a link for, do let me know.”

    I did let you know with an extended invitation, since I’m always open to hearing opposing opinions and thoughts. But you weren’t serious, just playing games, so you snuck out the back door.
    Now you’re back adding more layers of confusion, while honing your insult skills and feeling great about your superiority complex, I’m not impressed.

    All the while with eyes and ears slammed shut – seeing only the bubble within your head.
    That’s dogma driven politics – not learning or curiosity about climate science.

  47. citizenschallenge Says:

    Nor is it challenging someone’s stated thoughts.
    It’s just ratchet-jawing for the home crowd.

  48. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Citizen and Catherine,
    You’ve both said what you wanted to say it seems, let’s leave it at that. The current conversation is no longer constructive.

  49. citizenschallenge Says:

    sorry Catherine, I thought I’d fixed that she/.. earlier – sixtyish tunnel vision don’t you know.
    I think that’s one big difference between us, I know I make my errors and I know that along with self-skepticism, I need the folks around me/us to keep me/us honest, in a good sense. I know everyday brings more lessons to absorb and that once in a while I can be quite dumb, but I learn and I do understand a lot and I’m willing to go toe to toe and defend what I know, and I’m willing to listen, digest, learn from other people’s information, may the best evidence win.
    Making mistakes is okay because I learn from them. Then I listen to the way you have approached me and all I get is a kind of certitude I can’t comprehend. I could actually take it, if it were a serious discussion about actual words I’d written. (and I’d much rather get along than mud wrestle)

    Peace, Peter

  50. Bart Verheggen Says:

    Sorry citizen, but rehashing the same arguments will just prolong this ping-pong game. I removed that comment, while letting your more conciliatory comment stand.

  51. citizenschallenge Says:

    Fair enough, I’ve schlepped it over to my place.

  52. Hank Roberts Says:

    Opportunity for a fresh new open thread?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: