Blog powered by Typepad

« 'Prime Minister' Farage - gulp! - blimey! | Main | To 'vape' or not to 'vape'? »

Thursday, 09 May 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It is when "officials" pick up on the business of science that the troubles begin.

"When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind."
C. S. Lewis

Yup. "When" really gets to 'em.

No doubt, David, your knowledge of science can only be described as lamentable. Your attraction to trolling, however, is infallible.

Well, Bob, if all that heat is getting to you, take a break in Deluth:

"On Wednesday, wet snow piled up in parts of Minnesota, especially Duluth. In fact, Duluth broke its snowfall record for a single day in May with 10.6 inches of snow. The previous record for Duluth was 5.5 inches on May 10, 1902. That’s a 117-year-old record broken."

When I discovered that the IPCC had included papers from Prof. Mann unaccompanied by either data or calculations, plus papers from UEA CCU similarly unadorned with any actual evidence I concluded that whatever it was doing it wasn't science. That Prof. Mann still maintains that his data is his own private property, plus the fact that his code for calculation produces the same shape graph when fed with random data did not increase my faith either in the prof's work or the integrity of the IPCC. When prof. Jones testified that the CCU had lost all its data and.code my.Faith in the CCU's competence was not increased. The more so as both sets of papers contradicted many previous papers that did include the data and calculations.
If papers are accepted without data or calculations it is possible to "prove" anything at all.

Well, that proves it David. It snowed in Minnesota of all places. Obviously that means it's colder everywhere.

I'm thinking Bob, when it comes to responding to your comments we all maybe best preface whatever we address your way as "Obvious Bob."

Meaning no disrespect Obvious Bob, it's just that obviously we know what's likely. SoD too in some respects but then if we apellate that particularly, we'll wind up thinking the appellation implies some inheritedness.

And I fully expect the Memsahib's outrage would fall in the direction of Arkansas.

I'd prefer that not occur.

Bob, do you believe that something in the future can cause something today?



I don't understand your question. Where are you going with it?

JK, everyone who says sarcasm doesn't work in writing might be right.

I believe there's a website called "Minnesotan's for Global Warming." They could do with a bit of the latter judging from what I learn of their winters. A hardy bunch of rascals!

Warming / cooling occurs first, then carbon increases / decreases 1000 years later respectively.

So how can carbon changes cause warming / cooling if they happen 1000 years after warming / cooling?

Or more generally: How can something in the future cause something today?

If I punch you in the face and you fall over then we conclude that my punching you in the face caused you to fall over. We do not conclude that your falling over caused me to punch you in the face.



Thank god, at least it wasn't something involving Kurt Godel. Other than that I still have no idea what you're getting at. Can you translate from Zogian?

I think Bob, SoD's referring to the carbon cycle.


Maybe, but the fact there's a carbon cycle doesn't mean there can't be too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There's always been lava too, but you wouldn't want it running through your back yard, because it might make you too hot. A place for everything and everything in its place.

Warming / cooling happens first, then carbon increases / decreases after ...

I read somewhere that panicking climate scientists had looked at the cores again and reduced the lag to 200 years, not 800 years.

But that doesn't save them, the fact is: It warms or cools first, and then carbon follows after.

So in the holistic system of the earth's climate, carbon cannot possibly cause warming or cooling - unless you believe something in the future causes something today.

Looking at merely one sub-component of the system, the "carbon absorbs the heat and stops earth reflecting it back out" phenomenon, ignores the knock-on and non-linear (yes, Godel) effects that cancel the phenomenon.

An extreme example of where considering only a sub-component of a system actually produces the exact opposite causality than expected, let alone a falsie like the fake "carbon causes warming in the earth's climate" statement, is a refrigerator.

If you considered only the sub-component of a refrigerator that absorbs energy from the mains you'd think it should get hotter when plugged in and cooler when unplugged, when of course the opposite is true.


Here's the latest on the matter from WUWT ...

And here's the 200 year lag down from 800 years article. They tried, the poor little darlings, but they couldn't get carbon to come before warming! Also on WUWT ...


Ummm, you might want to actually read the stories from the search. From the very first one:

"CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase."


"Climate Myth...

CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)"


"Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.


This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns."

Carbon can exist in many forms. Carbon dioxide is only one. For example methane, another greenhouse gas, also contains carbon. But I appreciate your perspective on time travel.

If carbon released by the oceans amplified the warming, why did it not run off the scale?

Why did the warming stop, turn, and become cooling while carbon continued to increase?

Did this magical, convenient "amplification" of carbon just happen to stop when warming turned to cooling and carbon kept increasing for 200-800 years?

And why didn't the "de-amplification" of falling carbon prevent cooling from turning to warming at the other end of the cycle, when it stopped cooling, turned, and warmed for 200-800 years while carbon kept on falling?


Just notice the connector statement in the SkepticalScience crapulata ...

"This statement (ref carbon comes after warming) does not tell the whole story."

So it does tell some of the story? Like it tells that carbon doesn't cause warming or cooling, any more than the turbo causes acceleration in my car. I cause the acceleration in my car, I'm a third party, and the acceleration and turbo are both consequences of my action. The two of them are merely correlated and not causal on each other.

The non-linear, mathematically chaotic, Godel-esque state of the earth's climate system causes both the warming and the carbon.

And as pointed out before, Occam's razor as applied to non-linear, mathematically chaotic, Godel-esque systems shaves off any chance you have of discovering a model for it - proven courtesy of the very logical systems that scientists use as their own tools! ...

For all intents and purposes, the earth's climate is like you and I, she has a causality of her own. Carbon and temperature are merely her little bitches, and she will accelerate or decelerate them as she wishes.


Care to 'critique' that Bob?

Specifically I'd really appreciate a clearer understanding of just what "Parametrization" has to do with all this climate change modeling.

JK, pretty girl in the video, but I have no sense of irony. However, I'll answer SoD's questions from his comment at 19:00:

The scale is unlimited.

Whatever goes up must come down.

The word "magical" explains everything you need to know.

Everything that goes down doesn't have to go up.

Give me an example of any system in the world where both the following are true ...

1. A follows B in the timeline.
2. A causes B.


Your replies 1 and 2 are a contradiction. If the upward scale is unlimited then it is possible for something to go up without coming down.

3 is true enough, the entire carbon causes warming proposition is a conjurers sleight of hand trick.

4 the only things going down and staying down are truth and reason.

It's going to make Marxism, the pseudo-science of the 20th century with 120 million souls to answer for, look like child's play in the 21st century.


Here you Bob ...

Not satisfied with 120 million murders and excess deaths in the 20th century, with the pseudo-science of Marxism discredited you jump ship to the pseudo-science of carbon causes warming and a steady excess death rate of 600,000 Africans a year.

From class apartheid to energy apartheid at the turn of a century.

The ugly, sullen, self-righteous face of the next generation of psychopathic killers ...



9:19 False assumption.

9:30 I would never contradict myself.

11:11 Calm down, dear boy.

It's funny, I can sense you know the carbon warming colossus is crap, Bob, because you don't want to engage in it, and merely palm it off.

But it's bonded to you and the left and you can't shake it off, like something unpleasant you've stepped in and stuck to your shoe.

You know if left socialism ever gets going in the US you'll need every damn ounce of cheap fossil fuels to keep the system from going under.

Carbon warming is a mere tool in your struggle to bring capitalism down, if the job is ever done the tool will go straight back in the box.


Good typing there SoD.

(Speaking to Bob Obvious) "bonded to you and the left."


I just realize my remaining lifetime is too short to argue with either a true believer or a persistent troll.

The comments to this entry are closed.