Phil Clarke, are you paid to destroy all credibility and honesty for the Green Party about Climate Science?

You are doing a great job.

Are all Green Party Policies based on an equal amount of lying and abuse?

You've presented no evidence of Callender's 'cherry-picking', other than the assertion of a known liar.

I say again, more actual scepticism, please.

Meanwhile, back at the thread, which was about further attempts to rewrite history, to match the demands of Climate Scientists wanting their funding to continue

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/nature-paper-pushes-wild-exaggeration-of-7-13c-climate-sensitivity-even-gavin-schmidt-calls-them-out/#more-50976

A paper published in Nature claims an estimated 7 – 13c / doubling of CO2 – an estimate so wild it has drawn criticism from NASA GISS chairman Gavin Schmidt.

How bad does a Climate Science paper have to be to FAIL peer review?

EM started this thread with a non-peer reviewed drawing, but Phil Clarke is continuing where Gergis crashed and burned.

I'd ask you to put up or shut up GC, but you'll do neither will you?

Sep 27, 2016 at 6:26 PM | Phil Clarke

I have been putting up with your lies, dishonesty and abuse, and you just continue. If the Green Blob is happy for you to continue to bring the Green Party into further disrepute, then so be it. You have run out of science, and William M Connolley can't adjust historical facts.

How long is your list of failed attempts to replicate Mann's Hockey Stick?

PC. Do you think Callender used all the data points? Do you acknowledge that he threw away all high values? Do you acknowledge that Callender's selection has been challanged in peer reviewed papers? Do you admit that some data differs from the consensus opinion?

When surrounded by trees,do you demand proof that you are in a wood?

It doesn't matter if he's paid or not. He speaks from the apex of a great pyramid of disinformation. Don't look now, Phil, it's a mirage.
========

Correct again PC, the critical diagram was from Jaworowski, but "bollocks"? Is that how you view Callender's data presented graphically and highlighting those data points cherry picked to give acceptably low values.

I presume Callender didn't present a diagram of his data because he published at a time when it would have required the preparation of an expensive printing block.

PC. Believe it or not I do very much appreciate being informed of my errors. It has been an eye-opener to learn about Tim Ball, and it is no wonder that I couldn't find the CO2 diagram in Callender's papers yesterday, I always assumed the diagram was his work.

Phil Clarke & gc:

I'm sorry to see you having a go at each other, as I almost always enjoy gc's quips - I suspect we are of a similar age, and share many views. However, may I make a plea? Please, gc, can you stick to criticising the arguments? PC, can you please avoid deflection techniques?

E.g.: "Phil Clarke, are you paid to promote climate science?
One is used to absurdities from you, GC, but that takes the cake."

Phil, if the answer is "no" why not just say "no". Failure to say no leaves a suspicion that the answer may be "yes."

Then gc cited a story over at Paul Homewood's site and, rather than respond to it, you put up a couple of links instead to a "dodgy denier" website, without commenting on the stats regarding recent Arctic ice growth. Presumably you think that's enough to discredit the facts? It isn't.

I enjoy this site, even in the absence of our host, because we're keeping ourselves busy in his absence here in the play pen, and having some interesting discussions. Along the way I have my preconceptions challenged, and occasionally even change my mind about some detail, as a result. Certainly I am learning.

But abuse (and I put my hand up to being annoyed with EM and pointing out where he incorrectly represented what I wrote earlier on this thread, though I'm also pleased that we seem to have reverted to politeness) and deflection techniques achieve nothing.

Phil, I assume it is undeniable that this year's Arctic sea ice minimum is higher than you would have expected? Rather than side-step the issue, please can we talk about it? At least EM said (I paraphrase) something to the effect that it was short-term and couldn't be used to counter long-term trends (even if it is amusing to see people who argued that a 20 year pause in temperature increase isn't a long-term trend while arguing that less than 40 years of ice stats does represent a long-term trend).

I'm sure Homewood's facts are accurate, the conclusions are risible. The trajectory of the annual minimum is noisy, not every year will be a new record low. What is amusing is the cries of 'recovery' from certain quarters when a new record is not set or a few values temporarily buck the long term trend. That was the point of the DenialDepot posts but you know what they say about having to explain a joke ….

I was unsurprised by the value, but then I follow Neven's arctic ice blog where the median prediction was 4.38 km2, if you compare the actual value of 4.11 with the satellite era trend you discover it is well below the trendline. Some recovery!

Correct again PC, the critical diagram was from Jaworowski, but "bollocks"? Is that how you view Callender's data presented graphically and highlighting those data points cherry picked to give acceptably low values.

As we now are pretty certain the high values were wrong, what we are looking at here is quality control, not cherry-picking.

Remember that these were observations of a trace gas, the units being recorded were parts per million, using wet chemistry methods and often in urban areas. As Eli (who is a Chem professor in real life) observes:

The right way to sample is to use large evacuated bulbs which you open rapidly to sample. You always use carefully calibrated mixes to calibrate your measurements. You really want to understand and eliminate wall effects by making the volume large compared to the surface, optimizing pumping, etc. Keeling, for example, used 5 L bulbs when he started his California measurements.

The Buch method is an invitation to error. They have a small 250 cc cylinder filled with air one end of which is connected to a rubber bulb. They opened both stopcocks and held the bulb outstretched in Mr. Roland Ploennige's arm and pumped the thing a 150-200 times. The flow of air through the cylinder is not constant. This (a) is pretty close to Mr. Roland Ploennige, (b) does not guarantee a complete exchange of air in the bulb, (c) encourages backflow from the opposite end which is pretty close to Mr. Roland Ploennige's armpit if not his mouth (d) is not much volume to work (e) it is not clear if the measurements were calibrated against standard samples. That is for starters.

This is not the gold standard.

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/found-in-margins-recently-eli-has-been.html

See arctic ice volume. Granted it's modeled.
=============

Martin A

Thank you for the Callender paper.

So are the oceans warming or not, Phil? If they are warming at least some of the CO2 rise is outgassing. If they are cooling, we've trouble ahead.

Granted, I'm reasonably convinced that much of the recent rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. What you don't get, Phil, is that to the extent man can warm the earth it is beneficial, and the greening is miraculous.

This whole dialogue is between nature and narrative, and the narrative is sustained by unnecessary fear and misplaced guilt. We human's have a great need for guilt, and we are exquisitely sensitive to fear. However, narratives based on unnecessary fear and misplaced guilt do not survive, though long may they blow.
===============

Weather conditions in the past month - the (Great?) Arctic Cyclone followed by the Mega-Dipole to be precise - have left a mark on volume decrease. During August 2016 more sea ice volume was lost than during any other August in the past decade, with the exception of 2008, even more than during August 2012 (2909 km3 vs 2744 km3)

From <http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/09/piomas-september-2016.html>

I call this doing a 'reverse Homewood' ;-)

 What you don't get, Phil, is that to the extent man can warm the earth it is beneficial, and the greening is miraculous.

Feeding an extra billion, according to one impeccable source. What was that about disinformation?

Heh, it's all about attribution. If it's not yet feeding a billion extra bellies, it will before long.
============

Heh, during much of the last decade, there wasn't much volume to be lost. And even you ascribe this year's loss to weather. So put that in your this is not a pipe, and don't smoke it.
==============

PC. How is it quality control if you only accept values that fit your preconceived ideas about what the true values should be? How do you, even today, KNOW what the correct values should be? Why do stomatal indexes suggest higher values?

I wasn't aware that armpits are emitters of carbon dioxide. You learn something new every day.

I am perfectly willing to accept low preindustrial values, but I don't fall into the trap of believing that we know with 100% certainty that this was so. Only sampling preindustrial air would do that. I recall Paul Dennis speculating that some of the sealed glasswear of Faraday(?) and preserved by the Royal Society might provide such air samples. But perhaps they were collected too close to Davy's armpits.

There is pretty good evidence, though sparse, that Sea Ice Extent in the north was lower during the 1920s-1940s than in 1979. And what price the earlier data from 1973?
==============

Were we, the collective we, truly interested in how much the greening is feeding the world, there would have been intensive research to discover just how much the greening has contributed. That there is not, means that it is tabu to look at such a thing..
==============

Mark Hodgson, the Green Blob found CO2 guilty of all crimes known, in a public show trial known as the Hockey Stick. Since then, they have found no evidence to substantiate any of the accusations, and have had to rely on 97% Consensus, and falsified fabrications.

Phil Clarke seems to have a major vested interest. He presents "evidence", which turns out to be false, and lies about it. As an unreliable witness, he does not benefit either party, merely adding to the conclusion that 97% of climate science is made up.

It is not easy for the layman to untangle conflicting evidence about DNA etc.When climate science presents evidence that conflicts with known historical facts, that have been corroborated by modern science, I prefer to trust traditional techniques of evidence gathering, and prefer observational data.

It is not my fault that rapid global warming has not happened as predicted/forecast/projected. It has not happened because of cut backs in CO2 emissions. It has happened, because climate scientists presenting themselves as prosecution, judge and jury, were wrong. Whether 100% wrong, or 97% wrong, nobody knows, but climate science won't admit any wrongdoing.

Phil Clarke has a teenage tantrum hissy fit, and hurls abuse. It is known as Denial. All he has confirmed is that the Greens lie, and are not to be trusted or relied upon. Fortunately the UK electorate has worked out that the green bunny huggers are not very fluffy after all.

No research huh? In future, when you're just makin stuff up could you add a footnote to the post, perhaps

*Based on a hunch.

pc. Would you make it clear who you are insulting.