Man Based Global Warming....

Insightful.

 

Tim Ball..... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...man that's rich...

He's just a shill - sold his soul to big oil...... haven't we covered this already?

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)

 

Nice try at diversion Fibber - just answer the question. Where did I lie? What data did I provide that is wrong? Is antarctic sea ice near an all time high? Is arctic sea ice near normal? Has the global temperature been flat to declining most of this decade? Are sea surface temperatures declining since ~2002? Answers: Yes, to all.

Until you can provide evidence that these statements are false, you ought retract your statement that I am a "liar".

You have not contributed one insightful comment to this thread, unless you want to count whimpering and whining.

Answer the question Fibber. Where did I lie? What's wrong, cat got your tongue?

 

Is that really you, Tim? You don't look like you've been near a bike in a long time.

 

Isn't that where the Larsen Ice Shelf is? The one that's falling apart? Or is that what you mean by more 'sea ice' - all the remnants floating around?

Uh, NO. Isn't that why many countries are planning to use the storied Northern Passage? Yeah, the models were wrong. The rice is melting even faster than predicted, and the route will be open in summer much sooner than expected.

And what's your contribution? You don't seem the least bit interested in any topic here, other than denying climate change. The name 'TimBikes' on a Prius site gives the impression of a Prius-owning bike-riding guy named Tim. After Fibb's expose, I have to wonder if that's a false impression.

 

Tim,

I'll check out the charts/maps you've provided. In some cases I think the overall data tends to be over the heads of most of the posters in this thread so often times we rely on our favorite shill to interpret them for us. I tend to side with the respect climatologists that DO NOT have industry ties or conflicts of interest whereas others in this thread tend to side with people like Tim Ball or Roy Spencer, John Christy, etc. (insert anyone who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle). In these cases attacking the character of the individual is IMO justified because they can so easily adapt the data to fit their agenda and skew the results.

I'll do my best to interpret the information you provided.

 

Well now I'm really offended. I thought I had a few good ones in there. I especially thought the Climate Wars posts were very useful and didn't my posts on biases add anything?

I've also done a pretty good job of posting new articles that I happen to come across on CBC.ca and other mainstream media websites that report on peer-reviewed journal articles.

For those just tuning in... this is about the 925th post in this thread.

Probably everything you ever wanted to read about AGW is referenced in this thread - and since I said he was a liar, everything else that needed to be said already has been as well.

TimBikes contends that CO2 is not a significant contributor to climate warming, and that the warming trend stopped about a decade ago.

He wants me to provide evidence that proves that he is a liar. I think this whole thread does that and more.

 

As I said earlier, the attacks will be on the man (or the claimed funding ties), not the information.

Why is it that believers do not notice that the people or government bodies funding the AGW view have an agenda as well? Who is better funded? The AGW proponents BY FAR. And I do mean BY FAR:

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

"...all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION..."


If you were an industry going about the business of providing an enormously beneficial product and service, yet being savaged and falsely accused of potentially causing the demise of life as we know it, would you feel justified in providing funds for those who were on your side in defending yourself - especially if you knew the attacks were false and politically motivated?


So, this is setting up a straw man argument. It is complete B.S. Let's stick to the facts and to the science.

And Fibber, how many peer-reviewed papers has Al Gore written? Somewhat fewer than Dr. Tim Ball's four - precisely zero.

 

I wouldn't say useful, but they were at least very entertaining. Great science fiction.


I see this thread has progressed any farther than when I left it a couple hundred posts ago.

 

Denialists call it "spin." Afterall, reality has a well known liberal bias.

 

P.S. Fibber, the site you provided concerning the funding of Dr. Ball is completely one-sided and woefully incomplete. There are dead or non-existent links to most of the names listed as 'deniers'. There are no listings for Lindzen, Christy, etc., etc. The most damning information on Ball is that he may have overstated the date of his arrival on the scene as a climatologist. But Al Gore claimed to have created the Internet.

Useless.

 

And another thing -

Use of Word ‘Denier’
First, let’s take a look at Newsweek’s use of the word “denier†when describing a scientist who views with skepticism the unproven computer models predicting future climate doom. The use of this terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’†Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006 (LINK)

“Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,†Pielke, Jr. explained.

 

No, I'm sorry. I abide by a certain ethical code that insists I take account of my actions and their affect on other humans and the rest of the natural world so no, I would not shell out funding to produce false documents that push MY agenda and profitability. Smoking is good for you too right? These for-profit corporations DO NOT hold human and environmental health as their highest concern.

As for the science. I already refuted the "science" you provided. I'll work on assessing the information posted by Tim as well. Until then please go study the effects of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions on the ecology of natural areas. You still have not commented on my rebuttal of your "love of plants".

 

That would be great if military experts like Dyer and his sources at the Pentagon, CIA and US Navy were really writing fiction when they predict enormous war and strife will erupt over coming water and land changes due to climate change.

What always amazes me is the size of the balls that deniers like you have. How can anyone be so arrogant as to casually dismiss considerable, if not overwhelming consensus, by whole groups of experts?

Because you don't care about the facts? You have an axe to grind and dishonesty is only a means to a political end?

I know, I know, that's what you would say about me. But I'm not saying anything that isn't supported by reams of data and the large consensus that comes from it.

 

Oh, geez thanks.. I didn't know that.

 

??? I do ride regularly.

 

Hyo - regarding Larsen, it goes through frequent melt and recovery, but the press only tells us about the melt.

Larsen 1994:



Larsen 2004:



Larsen 2008:



In any case, Larsen is only a small area of the total Antarctic, so you are confusing weather with climate. And for the continent, the total amount of antarctic sea ice is increasing:



As for the arctic, again, it goes through cycles and is currently recovering from its recent lows. It is now back to about the recent average:

 

You are right, there-in lies Fibber's contributions to this thread. I will give him credit for that and retract my criticism. LOL.

OK - seriously Fibb - if you would like to stop calling me a "liar" - unless of course you can refute the data I have presented - then I would be happy to engage with you in a serious discussion. But I don't believe you are ready for that. You have no real response to any data I do present other than to say I'm a "liar" and a "bi-otch". Deep, dude. Really deep. And you say you are the one who is offended?

 

I agree Ball is not my favorite guy. I don't think he's bought - I'm just not sure how well qualified he is. But none-the-less does bring up some valid criticisms of the IPCC which remain unaddressed. Spencer and Christy I think are both top notch. They have a perspective many don't like, but I think (as others here have argued) that the work should be evaluated, not the person. Certainly, James Hansen has turned into quite the nutjob but I don't see any criticisms of him from the AGW crowd here.

Certainly there is an argument that CO2 has an impact on climate - I only contend that based on available evidence I don't see a case for anything catastrophic as a result of CO2. I have yet to be convinced otherwise and certainly, current climate trends, while not disproving a role for CO2, hardly bolster the case.

 

Unfortunately the "reams" of data are largely climate models which are incomplete and don't even account for some of the most basic of inputs, such as ocean circulation. If you ever wondered why temperatures are moderate along the coast, it is - ta da - the ocean. It vastly overwhelms the influence of atmosphere on climate, and yet we hardly understand / consider it at all in climate models. And that is just one example.

Here, for instance, is a comparison of modeled ocean heat content vs. observed ocean heat content. Obviously, there is "slight" discrepancy. ;-)



I prefer empirical data. And beyond a bout of warming late last century, there is very little evidence that increases in CO2 marched lock-step with temperatures. Certainly, as I demonstrated previously to Alric, we had 50 years of rapidly increasing CO2 from about 1935 or so onward that were matched by 50 years of declining global temperatures. If CO2 were the primary climate driver it is claimed, this would not have occurred nor would the current climate cooling occur - again - in an era of rapidly increasing CO2.

Is it possible CO2 has some background effect? Yes. But it apparently is not large enough to overcome natural variation.

And, speaking of which, how much of the warming late last century was natural vs. CO2 driven? If you look closely, you will see very little temp. increase at all from 1979 to 1997. After 1998 (the strong El Nino year) there is a step up in temperatures.

How does CO2 account for a "step" in global temps around 1998 and yet not significantly effect temperatures for the 20 years prior to 1998 (or the 50 years before 1979). Strange, isn't it? Maybe CO2 is just not that magical after all.