Someone named Dikran Marsupial has been posting massive amounts of FUD on this site in the last few days. He has dragged a discussion of atmospheric physics to the planet Mercury, which does not have an atmosphere.
On another thread he is trying to rewrite history and pretend that the CIA, Newsweek, Time, Science News, The New York Times, Obama’s science advisor, the director of CRU, and the director of NCAR all made up the 1970s ice age scare.
How did AIDS get started?
dikran marsupial
LOL, your post is simply a bad tempered indication that you couldn’t answer the criticisms of the science. While it is rather funny, it is at the same time rather sad.
Make a specific criticism to discuss. You are thrashing around like a crazy person.
How about this one where I show that your agument about the lack of a correllation between CO2 and temperature on geological timescales is specious by demonstrating that there is no correlation between temperature and solar activity on geological timescales either.
Always trying to rewrite history?
http://www.real-science.com/astronomer-william-herschel-sunspots-wheat
Steven, I did not say that solar activity does not affect tempeartures, of course it does. I was showing that your argument about the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature over geological timescales is specious becuase if you use the same argument with solar activity there is no correlation there either and we know that solar activity affects temperatures, so there must be a flaw in the argument.
As it happens, both CO2 and solar activity affect temperatures, however that does not mean that either of them will have an obvious correllation over geological timescales. The reason there is not a simple correlation is that CO2 and solar activity are only two of the factors that affect temperatures, and CO2 is thought to regulate temperatures over geological timescales, which may have compensated for the “feint yound sun”. See the work of David Archer and others (folowing on from the work of Carl Sagan)
If anything the effect of the reduction in solar activity in the Maunder minimum only reinforces my argument as the drop in solar activity during the Maunder minumum (a fraction of a percent) is tiny compared to the rise of several percent since the Ordovician.
Incidentally I think it would make more sense to discuss the science on the original thread rather than here, where your original argument is presented along with my counter-argument.
The Ordovician had fairly constant CO2, yet temperatures varied by 10C.
We don’t have suffient proxy data for the Ordovician to be able to say that CO2 levels were constant over that time, see e.g. Royer,CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic, section 3.2. Note Royer also points out that solar activity was much lower then (4%), so high CO2, low solar activity seems to me a reasonable explanation for there being relatively steady temperatures. Do you have an alternate explanation?
Now if you have some data, of sufficient resolution and small enough error bars to show that CO2 was constant in the Ordovician, I’d be genuinely interested to see them.
However, if it is your assertion that Ordovician CO2 levels were constant, how do you explain the large cap-carbonate deposits that were formed at that time?
How would steady CO2 levels prevent carbonate formation? What are you talking about?
When carbonate minerals form, the carbonate has to come from somewhere. They form in the oceans, reducing the amount of carbon in the ocean. The transfer of CO2 between the ocean and the atmosphere is in part governed by the difference in patial pressure between the sorface waters and the atmosphere. So if oceanic carbon is depleted by the formation of large ranges of carbonate rocks, then one would expect atmospheric CO2 levels to fall.
As it happens, the Encyclopedia britannica suggests that atmospheric CO2 was not constant in the Ordovician: “Recently it has been proposed that the terminal Ordovician glaciation was triggered through a combination of the placement of Africa over the South Pole and a short-lived drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This drawdown was favoured by declining volcanism during the Ordovician, which would have introduced progressively less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Increasing orogeny and uplift during later Ordovician times would have accelerated the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the weathering of silicate rocks. Once snow began to accumulate in North Africa, the increased albedo (surface reflectance) of the snow would have fostered lower temperatures and increased the accumulation of greater amounts of snow in Gondwana, thereby bringing about a glacial period. The cooling of the oceans may also have fostered the increased productivity of photosynthetic organisms, moving nutrients from the depths to the surface through the process of upwelling. As the populations of photosynthesizers increased, additional carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere. At the end of this glacial period, it is now believed, as the production of carbon dioxide from volcanoes continued, the proportion of atmospheric carbon dioxide removal due to the weathering of silicate rocks declined. The silicate rocks of Gondwana had no access to the atmosphere, because many were covered by thick layers of glacial ice.”
and there are also several journal papers that also suggest that CO2 levels were not constant over this period, e.g.
Young et al. Did changes in atmospheric CO2 coincide with latest Ordovician glacial–interglacial cycles?, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 296, Issues 3–4, 15 October 2010, Pages 376–388
abstractThe Late Ordovician Hirnantian Stage (∼ 444 million years ago) was one of three time periods during the past half billion years in which large continental glaciers formed over Earth’s polar regions. The effects of this glaciation were far-reaching and coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. The cause of this ice age is uncertain, and a paradoxical association with evidence for high atmospheric CO2 levels has been debated. Precise linkages between sea level, ice volume, and carbon isotope (δ13Ccarb and δ13Corg) proxy records of pCO2 have been poorly understood due in part to uncertainties in stratigraphic correlation and the interpretation of globally important sections. Although correlation difficulties remain, recent Hirnantian biostratigraphic studies now allow for improved correlations. Here we show that consistent trends in both δ13Ccarb and δ13Corg from two well-dated stratigraphic sequences in Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada coincide with changes in Late Ordovician (Hirnantian) climate as inferred from sea level and the extent of ice sheets. The integrated datasets are consistent with increasing pCO2 levels in response to ice-sheet expansion that reduced silicate weathering. Ultimately, the time period of elevated pCO2 levels is followed by geologic evidence of deglaciation.
You are arguing with a geologist. Carbonates generally form in warm water, because the solubility of CO2 is lower at warmer temperatures. During the winter, the oceans absorb more CO2. During the summer, they form carbonates. Cold water currents can also bring dissolved carbonates to warmer regions of the ocean.
Your circular argument “proving” that CO2 varied during the Ordovician is based on the belief that CO2 changes caused the ice age.
Update: having checked, it appears that the carbonate for cap carbonates is actually from chemical weathering of rocks on land by weak carbonic acid (i.e. rain), which when washed out into the ocean then precipitate out. So the formation of cap carbonates takes CO2 directly out of the atmosphere.
Steven, see my update. Cap carbonates are formed by chemical weathering on land, which takes CO2 directly out of the atmosphere. So the formation of cap carbonates is an indication that CO2 levels were falling.
However, I have provided details of two papers that provide evidence of changes in CO2 during the Ordovician, and it is well enough known that the same information is given in the Encyclopedia britanica. The formation of cap carbonates in the Ordovician is also evidence that CO2 levels were not constant.
So where is your evidence that CO2 levels were fairly constant in the Ordovician?
There are numerous degrees of freedom in the carbonate balance equation. You are looking at only one of them.
temperature, pH, rainfall, atmospheric CO2, etc … etc …
O.K., so what about the two journal papers and the encyclopedia britanica, which all disagree with your contention that CO2 levels were fairly constant in the Ordovician.
You write “There are numerous degrees of freedom in the carbonate balance equation. You are looking at only one of them.” This is exactly analogeous to the problem with looking for a correllation between CO2 and temperature over geological timescales. There are many things that affect temperature, CO2 levels are only one of them, so you shouldn’t expect to see a correlation over geological timescales between CO2 and temperature, just as you shouldn’t expect to see a correlation between solar activity and temperature on a geological time scale (and indeed there isn’t one).
BTW, when I mentioned Mercury, I did so to support a point you made in a comment to another contributor. I was agreeing with you.
Why waste time and effort on trolls?
“Skeptical Science’s own Dikran Marsupial….”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1038
So a troll is someone who goes and obtains the data and performs a statistical analysis of it and shares it with others?
Sorry … my mistake.
What I should have said was:
“Why waste time and effort on delusional trolls?”
So delusions are formed by performing statistical analysis of the data. So tell me, what were the flaws in my statistical analysis, in what way were they deluded?
So, no sea ice by 2040? Yea, that will happen. I am skeptical of that “science”.
Cool, if you have some good science that gives physical explanations for how the decline in Arctic sea ice extent will be halted, then I for one would be glad to hear about it. ISTR when I first presented my statistical model at SkS (it was in a comment on another post) I made it clear that it was a purely statistical prediction (ones based on physics are much more reliable).
I also showed that the conclusions are sensitive to modelling assumptions, and other models don’t give an ice free arctic as soon as that one. SkS gave a link to the comment where I gave that caveat.
What catastrophe follows an “ice free arctic”.
Did I say there would be a catastrophe? The main result would be that the albedo of the Arctic would drop considerably, so that solar radiation that was once reflected out back out into space would be absorbed, further warming the Arctic region. This *could* eventually lead to the destabilisation of the Greenland ice cap, which might melt over the course of a few thousand years, with a big rise in sea levels.
However, as I said, this is a purely statistical prediction, which I only made because I was interested in the statistical properties of a particular method I was studying at the time (Gaussian Processes). Physical models of sea ice dynamics in my view are of more importance.
There are a lot of “coulds” and “ifs” in that statement. The compounding of probabilities is quite extreme.
How much surface of the Earth must be covered buy ice for what portion of the calendar year to get the an “albedo” quotient that would meet the approval of the warmist community? Our Energy Commisar Mr. Chu Phd suggested painting all of our roofs white. Heck that must constitute possibly a whopping 1/2 of 1/1000 of the Earth’s surface.
Yes, It is called the Arctic winter. Unless the Earth’s axis changes and the Arctic Circle is no longer in darkness for three months, and the physical properties of water do not change, water will still freeze in the Arctic Ocean in winter. Your projection started in 1980, a very high year for NH Ice. Your projection looks at a period of time when we were ebbing from a natural high point. In short, it is crap.
Why do you think sea ice extent can sometimes go down when temps are well below freezing? Do you really think it is melting because of CO2 induced warmth? Is it some new, magical property of CO2 (beyond the ability to enhance grant money)?
The prediction is for an ice free Arctic in the summer, i.e. when sea ice is at its minimum.
As to 1980, you can only build a statistical model using data that you actually have, not data that you don’t or statements in CIA reports etc. This is why I gave clear caveats about this being a purely statsitical projection and that physics-based projections are more reliable.
I know it was for the summer, but the ice forms in the winter. Do you have any evidence that it is has warmed enough now to either prevent more ice from forming in the winter, or for more to melt in summer? And, I will not accept Hansen’s red crayon, made up data.
Why do you suppose old ice in the Arctic is like 5 years old? If it simply was a matter of freeze and melt, the ice would be 10s of thousands of years old. This is a dynamic system where ice forms and moves to areas where it melts. It is natural and has been going on for milenia. There is no CO2 bubble over the Arctic Circle that is trapping heat and melting all the precious ice. You need to get out more and not believe everything Hansen says.
Where would you put your money on what causes more ice loss in the Arctic?
A. CO2 reradiating heat and melting the ice pack, or
B. Ice breakers constantly smashing up the ice and trimming the edges, allowing more to flow to areas where it can melt?
I have said several times now that it is a purely statistical projection. I am not asserting any causal relationships to the decline in sea ice extent over the last 30 years. However, the fact that sea ice extent is declining, as is sea ice volume, and the fact that old multi-year ice is declining is an indication that something is changing in the Arctic that means that the growth of ice in the winter is not matching ice loss in the summer. So if this continues, then at some point the summer will be ice free because not enough ice forms in the winter to last all summer. Thus it is perfectly reasonable for a STATISTICAL analysis to suggest that there will be an ice free Arctic in the summer at some point.
However, if you have a physical explanation why the decline in sea ice extent will be reversed, then I will be happy to hear it. If you can’t provide a physical explanation, can you provide some statistical evidence that the decline of the last 30 years will end?
I am not the one making the assertion, and pretending that this is not about CO2 is silly. If it is natural, then all the rent seekers will have to manufacture a new boogeyman.
What we are seeing is mostly natural variation. Your prediction uses a small amount of data starting at a high point. I really don’t care about the statistics as the amount of data available is too small to see the whole picture. Look at Earth history – it began before the satellite era (when the PDO went positive). I say it will go back now that the PDO has turned negative. There is my physical explanation. Do I have a statistical analysis – No. But I am not using small portion of a cycle to try and influence the policy makers of the world into committing economic suicide.
If only all you rent seekers had gotten your wishes before the PDO turned negative, you could have taken credit for saving the world. Now, you will just be exposed as charlatans.
O.K., so you think that the PDO has an effect on arctic sea ice extent. Is there any physical evidence to suggest that the PDO has affected Arctic sea ice extent in the past? If there is no evidence that it has affected it in the past, why should we expect it to have an effect in the future?
I have an open mind on this (indeed I would be very happy to find out that the decline in arctis sea ice was merely natural fluctuation). But I am swayed by evidence and reasoned argument.
How much ice was there in 1979 at the end of a negative phase of the PDO? What has happened since it turned positve? There is the answer to your question.
No, that is not physical evidence, that is a statistical correlation over a little more than a quarter of a cycle of an oscillation. Hardly compelling, to say the least.
As I said physical models are more reliable than statistical models. Statistical models that have actually been fitted to data and have error bars on them are generally more reliable than an observation that the decline in sea ice extent seems to have happened at about the same time as a change in the PDO, over a small part of a cycle.
DM Says: “No, that is not physical evidence, that is a statistical correlation over a little more than a quarter of a cycle of an oscillation. Hardly compelling, to say the least.”
You think what actually happened is not physical evidence? Not compelling? It is way more compelling than your graph. Stick to your alternate reality and say hi to Phil.
Having looked at the data there doesn’t seem to be much evidence to support your theory. Sea ice extent was in decline well before PDO reached its peak, which suggests that PDO does not explain the decline in sea ice extent, so there is no good reason to expect an upswing in PDO to halt the decline.
data at http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:12/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1960
uh? well doesn’t the prior 1930s event where the ice really did shrink enough for boats to do repeat trips via the waterways up there..and then after a whole pile of folks back then also did the woe woe doom gloom, etc the ice did what it does, and came back..and those icestation radar type places they built there had to keep being raised as they got snowed under..
problem is for every theory/ model/ supposition you make, as you say for interest… some utter clown jumps onto it and swears your datas good and we are all doomed, and then the mediated masses all unquestioningly accept is “all over red rover”
I knew his brother – Dikhed
I gotta clean my monitor now! Should have known better than to drink morning coffe while reading a thread with this one’s title.
Paul
Interesting. You present such a measured reasonable tone in your posts over at WUWT but come to Goddard’s little swamp and get down in the mud with the rest of them.
Thanks for the heads up on your true proclivities.
Folks, I think perhaps this link may shed some light on your problem. It is perhaps the best analysis I have ever seen of the type of poster involved.
http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/dobson-dykes-and-diverse-disputes/
You have become involved in a Clown Dance, AKA Post-Modern Mamba.
I hadn’t quite realised until now that skepticalscience would be more accurately named UEAscience or CRUscience.
What catastrophe follows an “ice free arctic”.
The ninnies all wet themselves.
This is so typical. Warmists are so enamoured of models that they ignore the real world, preferring to live out their avatar fantasies.
Goddard, by his own admission, is a geologist (most of my time in the Earth Sciences dept was spent as a geology student) and prefers real world observation to make believe. Never the twain shall meet.
Climate models are garbage. GIGO. Read the chart here…
“2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”
When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4.
You cannot build a reliable model when you understand less than 75% of the objects’ workings.
All the alarmists have are models. All the alarmists have is garbage. Of course they will defend the models to their last breath because it is all they have.
Hand waving and misdirection is a common tactic employed by people with weak arguments.
There was a quote on one of the threads earlier to the effect that “you stop wrestling with pigs in the mud once you realise that the pig actually enjoys it.”
In this case the pig is only engaging in this 5th grade misdirection so that he can take it back over to Skeptical Bullshit and say “See how clever I am – all those so-called ‘scientists’ over at Real-Science and WUWT can’t refute my arguments.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1038
Try engaging in this sort of argument with the Dingo’s Donger on his home turf over at SS.com.LOL to that.I took the bait…….in a moment of weakness. I even knew it, but couldn’t stop. At least I now know that records of actual events are not physical evidence. If only I went to EAU I could have learned that statistical analysis and computer models are what really matter…..to post-normal climate scientists.
“My principal research interests lie in machine learning…”
Explains why his own human learning is so very lacking.
“Calgon Avatar, take me away!”
Which is why you’ll almost never find actual science discussed here. How many times have *you* cited actual science research? It’s always hyperbolic rhetoric.
Take for instance Hansen and the temperature adjustments made by GISS: Is there one solid piece of criticism anywhere on this site that shows the model used by GISS is wrong? No. It’s all handwaving and misdirection.
Our host and many commenters have said:
The adjustments only go in one direction. Wrong.
The adjustments are not based on science. Wrong.
The adjustments have never been tested. Wrong.
An actual scientific criticism would *show* how the decisions made were biased/incorrect/arbitrary etc. Rhetoric might work well in politics, but it doesn’t work in science. You can talk until you’re blue in the face, but if you don’t take the time to work through the numbers you’re not doing (or helping) the science.
Yes it is indeed shocking that so many in the climate science community ignore the fundamentals of the scientific method, and instead jump straight into mental masturbation.
What we need is a logorrhea index. Then we could demonstrate the strong positive correlation between logorrhea and the AGW-complex — as exhibited by trolls. I suspect this is a significant phenomenon.
It seems to me that the only way people can keep claiming that the Arctic ice is declining is to cite supposed volume decreases. It’s certainly not the minimum summer extent, at least not over the last 10 years. Now, one could argue about the volume, but that’s never what these people do; they just make the flat statement that the Arctic ice is declining. (That’s also an interesting phenomenon.)
“Gator says:
January 31, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Hey Steve! Here is what your troll looks like without his mask…”
So childish… Why would you post a person’s email and phone number? I’m just wondering whether you are hoping to use this to incite hate mail or something? Marc Marano would be proud.
On the same Subject, Goddard it is a real shame that you let people do this on your blog.
Actually, Gavin’s use of a fake name when claiming to be an authority is childish. What does he have to fear? I only use ‘Gator’ when I am posting comments, when I contact and challenge someone on their own turf, I use my real name and do not hide behind a furry critter. That is childish.
If Gavin is going to attack others anonymously, I am going to out him. The info I posted is public info off of the UEA website.
Grow up.
“Actually, Gavin’s use of a fake name when claiming to be an authority is childish. What does he have to fear?…If Gavin is going to attack others anonymously, I am going to out him.”
I’m sure you have the same opinion of Goddard who is using a fake name too. Hear that? It’s the whispers of a double standard… Sure you loved it when Mcintyre was using Nigel Perseus as his fake name too…
You attacked me for outing Gavin. If ‘Steven’ wants to use a nom de plume on this site, that is his business. Why is it Gavin feels it necessary to hide? That is the question you shopuld be asking. When I contact James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt,Lisa Jackson, or any other entity I use my real name and personal email address because I have nothing to hide, I am not ahamed of what I write. Gavin’s use of a fake name shows his lack of conviction, and lack of cojones.
So no double standard here. Strike two.
If SG wants to use a nom de plume that’s his business.
If Gavin wants to use a nom de plume – that’s *your* business.
And you don’t see any double standard.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
The comments are unmoderated, and I removed the comment you are referring to.
That was nice of you to do….but I wouldn’t have done it
It’s his public bio….gator just copied and pasted it
He put his email and phone on the internet….gator didn’t
Thankyou. Gavin is a public figure, and worse, on the public dime.
He is fair game in my book.
absolutely………..
True he is a public figure but all the same why go about searching (however you did) and tracking him so you could pinpoint who he was and then sharing it with everyone here. I’m glad and I appreciate that Goddard removed it, but at the end of the day I just think that the “outing” of people is childish. If you wanna argue with someone do so based on their arguments, you do not need to expose who they are and give their contact details. No ifs ands or buts, it is a hack job to do so.
These guys should be free to rip-off the public free of impediment or even inconvenience?
Any non scientist idiot like myself can look at current Arctic sea ice and tell in one second that there is no “death spiral”. There is roughly the same ice as 25 years ago.
So no, Dr. Dikran matter how much you wish , hope and pontificate (it’s worse than we thought!!!), the Arctic is not going to be ice free anytime soon.
“There is roughly the same ice as 25 years ago.”
That’s not at all true. You can’t just make shit up you know? Provide the data because every potential datasource I see all show significant ice loss
Robert,
If you are a follower of this site, you will know that cryosphere charts have been shown from past years. You can easily go back to past posts and see what I mean. In particular, I recall a map from 1981 that showed on the same date ice extent no more than a couple percentage points higher than 2011 So, I am not just throwing stuff out there.
If you want to believe the ice is in a death spiral with it minus 80 in Alaska and minus 65 in Siberia, be my guest.
Andy
@Robert: They can’t show you data to back up their claims because said data doesn’t exist.
Both the arctic yearly maximum and the yearly minimum have been dropping. Volume has been dropping even more precipitously.
Notice how Andy points to some vague post about how SIE was the same on one day in 1981. Well, that proves it. Forget about annual trends, or natural variation. Andy says there was one day in 1981 when the SIE blah, blah, blah.
The sad thing is Andy probably actually believes it. He isn’t smart enough to look at the data and make a rational decision. Obviously anyone that looked at the data would come to the conclusion that the arctic has been losing ice.
Since the data gives lie to their position, they can’t cite it. It’s forbidden. Instead they rely on one day anomalies or data outliers.
@Andy: Here Andy: Cryosphere Today go look at the data and show us how the ice hasn’t decreased.
Kevin,
If you are going to respond to my posts, I wish you would do so reasonably quickly, so I don’t have to rumage through 9 pages of posts to figure out what I said.
Steven has periodically shown comparative cryosphere maps for several different years. I feel pretty cetain that he has also shown 1991 and 1996 as well as others. He frequently refers to “the missing ice cube”, which means a trivial difference.
I am sure that you have seen that there are two sets of data out there, one supporing the alarmist position and another the skeptic position. It is highly unsetting that there is so little unbaised information out there.
I suggested that both skeptics and alarmists get on the same airplane and do a joint survey in September and come up with a consensus figure with respect to the sea ice minimum. Maybe you and Steven should do so next September.
I think a case can be made for slow warming over the last 150 years (within the range of natural variability), but whether it is accelerating or signficant to human existence in another quesion.
Also, having done a lot of study with respect to weather history, there does not seem to be much of a case that extreme weather events are more frequent or severe.
Andy – I gave you a link to the data. What does it show?
The yearly maximum is decreasing. The yearly minimum is decreasing. If we want to look at volume – it’s decreasing too.
Now, whether SG can show that a certain day in year x is the same as a certain day in year y is irrelevant. It’s nothing more than meaningless trivia in a scientific sense.
Sea ice area has declined by nearly 50% in 30+ years. 50%. Look at the data. Then tell me that it’s important/relevant/scientifically meaningful that their exists one day (or week) where 1981 matched 2011.
“That’s not at all true” – there are satellite images here that show ice growth. If you “feel” that it is still untrue, than you are not being logical. Feeling is not fact.
Quoting Robert…
“True he is a public figure but all the same why go about searching…”
This ‘man’ is trying to sway public opinion on blogs to garner more taxpayer money, while hiding behind a furry critter like a coward. That is dishonest and highly unethical. Obviously he knows this or he would use his real name.
I’ll sell you a clue if necessary.
Strike three.
@ Special K!
“And you don’t see any double standard.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.”
As far as I know, SG is not out trying to scare people into giving him more grants. As far as I know, SG is not on the public dime.
Where is Gavin anyway?
No insults necessary, people see you Special K!
Gator – you can rationalize away, but we see right through it.
“As far as you know ….” Isn’t that the point? If you had to research Gavbin to find out his identity, then why haven’t you researched SG? He could be working for a company directly involved – you’ll never know.
I don’t work for the government. I don’t get any grant money. Yet you immediately tried to look into my background.
You didn’t *know* Gavin’s identity until you looked. I.e., you looked first then rationalized *why*. If anonymous posting is OK for the goose, it’s OK for the gander. Unless you’ve got a reptilian brain.
The founding father’s of the United States all used anonymous letters to sway opinion – haven’t you ever heard of the Federalist papers? The arena of ideas – not personality – are what should matter. I’ve not tried to research your background or SG’s or anyone else here. It matters not.
Let’s assume SG is bankrolled by fossil fuel interests opposed to climate change legislation. Would that be pertinent? Would it color your perception? How would his articles be different if he was bankrolled by fossil fuel interests?
Does Gavin’s job rely upon grant money? I doubt it. You’ve made an uninformed leap that working for a public entity means you depend on grant money. Nor is giving *accurate* scientific explanations ‘trying to scare’ people. What’s scary about knowing that CO2 is correlated with NH sources as opposed to SH? Nothing.
Oh, and remember – I haven’t lived in Superior in 30 years. You’re not even very good and your PI avocation.
I already looked up Gavin’s grants, you don’t want to go there.
If you do not understand ‘unethical’, I am not surprised.
Quit obfuscating.
@Gator: I already looked up Gavin’s grants, you don’t want to go there.
Are you claiming his job depends on climate grant money?
Where is Gavin?
@Gator: Given your evasion of the question, and your not exactly sterling record of telling the truth, I’m surmising you found a dead end – otherwise you’d be trumpeting it high and low.
*I* might not want to go there, but you’d be wallowing in the mud squealing wheeeee … the whole way.
Where is Gavin?
Where is that paper that refutes natural variabilty?
Where is this unprecedented climate?
Where is your head?
I see hands waving, but nothing else.