RealClimate logo


The Bore Hole

Filed under: — group @ 6 December 2004

A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.

1,920 Responses to “The Bore Hole”

  1. 1901

    Gavin,

    Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are not “deniers”. They are just people who disagree with what you, and the other name callers, believe.

    Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are intelligent people. When you insult them, by calling them a nasty name, they become your enemy. That means that you have lost.

    If you listened to them, rather than calling them names, then you might get somewhere. There are no guarantees, but the name calling strategy isn’t working.

    I have been following the global warming debacle since before the original climategate (for over 10 years). In all that time, I have NEVER claimed that global warming is not happening. But I have been called a “denier” constantly, because I question some aspects of global warming.

    I agree with you, that trust should be based on telling the truth. But it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.

    Climate denial exists. But to categorize everybody who disagrees with you, as a “denier”, makes you even worse than a “denier” (if that is possible).

    I will put modesty aside for a minute, and say that I am an intelligent person. I have a number of university level scholarships and prizes to prove it. For my Bachelor of Commerce degree (21 papers), majoring in Finance and Economics, I got 12 A+’s, 5 A’s, and 4 A-‘s.

    I also have a good science education. I specialised in science from my second year at high school. I got A+’s at university for stage 1 Physics and biology, and I got an A+ for Stage 2 Chemistry Honours (direct entry to Stage 2 Chemistry Honours School from high school).

    But Alarmists constantly call me a denier, and insist that I am a “science denier”, who doesn’t know any science. I suspect that I am better qualified than most of them, but I am to modest to point it out.

    I hate Alarmists for how they treat me. They treat me as if I am evil, and not human. I will oppose most of the things that Alarmists want, just because I hate them so much. I don’t need any other reason.

    If you want to know what I think about global warming, then you should visit my website.
    https://agree-to-disagree.com

    Even though I hate Alarmists, I still try to listen to them. Because I know that I don’t know everything. I am still hopeful that some “nice” Alarmists will appear, and have a friendly debate with me about global warming.

    I can be reasoned with. But not by a person who calls me a “denier”.

  2. 1902
    Jim Baird says:

    National Geographic says of the Zanna study, “If all the heat the ocean absorbed from from 1955 onward were suddenly added to the atmosphere, air temperatures would rocket by more than 60 degrees.”

    Per above, the average transit time for the deep Pacific is 1000 years, and it is expected that the deep Pacific won’t be in equilibrium with surface climate changes over shorter time scales.

    In other words, humanity is looking at 6C warming every century for the next 1,000 years.

    To prevent the sixth extinction event, this heat has to be converted to an energy carrier that extracts a portion of the heat from the ocean and converts it to the energy required by 9-10 billion people for use on land.

    The heat of warming, 335 terawatts annually, converted at 7.5% produces 25 terawatts of primary energy and the waste of this is the heat that needs to be dissipated into space. The 310 terawatts unconverted by negative emissions ocean thermal energy conversion returns to the surface by advection in 250 years at which time it can be driven back down by a heat pipe and converted again into useful energy.

    Ultimately, over 3250 years all of this 60 degrees is consumed and much of life on Earth is spared.

    To do otherwise is to invite our ultimate demise.

  3. 1903

    .
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶① . . . An open letter to RealClimate.org . . .
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    .

    [ This open letter has been posted on a number of major global warming websites. ]
    [ You can “disappear” this copy, but there are plenty of other copies for people to see ]

    Gavin Schmidt from RealClimate.org is a wise person.

    He gives good advice.

    If Gavin gives you some advice, then I suggest that you take it.

    Gavin recently gave all Deniers some good advice.

    If Deniers don’t want to be rightly accused of climate denial, then don’t go around denying climate science.

    That bit of advice is beautifully simple. It can’t be argued with. It is logically sound. It is a statement that Yogi Berra would be proud of.

    But Gavin is a busy person. He doesn’t have time to give everybody the advice that they deserve.

    To solve this problem, I have managed to “get inside Gavin’s head”, so that everybody can benefit from Gavin’s wisdom.

    First, some advice for Alarmists.
    ———————————

    Alarmists, if you don’t want to be called a stupid arrogant jerk, then don’t act like a stupid arrogant jerk.

    Now some advice for climate scientists.
    —————————————

    Climate scientists, if you don’t want to be called an undemocratic third world dictator, then don’t act like an undemocratic third world dictator.

    Even Gavin could benefit from some “Gavin” type advice.
    ——————————————————-

    Gavin, if you don’t want to be called an obnoxious Tamino-like character, then don’t act like an obnoxious Tamino-like character.
    .

    I think that I am getting the hang of giving out wise advice.

    I think that I will quit while I am ahead, with one last piece of advice for Gavin.

    Gavin, if you want to “weasel” out of answering any difficult climate questions, then call the questioner a Denier. Because nobody is expected to answer questions from Deniers.

    Sorry, Gavin. I can see that you already knew that last piece of advice.

    Keep up the good work !!!

    ====================

    An open letter to RealClimate.org

    Anybody who would like to read the conversation that I DIDN’T have with Gavin, should click this link:
    https://agree-to-disagree.com/an-open-letter-to-realclimate-org

  4. 1904
    Dave Burton says:

    Gavin wrote to Sheldon Walker, “Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth. The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable.”

    The truth is that most of the people who use that term do not restrict it to know-nothings. Anyone who disagrees with even the most tenuous aspect of climate alarmism gets called a “denier” by climate alarmists (often from behind anonymous handles like “t marvell,” “DukeSnide,” “Mal Adapted,” “Al Bundy,” etc.). It doesn’t matter whether the disagreement is based on mere reflexive gainsaying or solid evidence.

    In fact, most of the people who use that pejorative term also insist, ironically, that there is no such thing as “solid evidence” against climate alarmism.

    For instance, when I show graphs like these as proof that CO2 level does not significantly influence the rate of sea-level rise, and thus that the IPCC is wrong to claim that rates of sea-level rise depend on emission scenarios or RCPs, I usually get called a “denier,” or worse:

    https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_Wismar_Stockholm_vs_CO2_annot3.png

    https://sealevel.info/MSL_global_thumbnails5.html

    Sea-level continues to rise in some places and fall in others, at rates not significantly different from 90 years and 105 ppmv CO2 ago.

    All that additional atmospheric CO2, CH4, etc. has not significantly altered sea-level trends, thus far. (Nor, contrary to Leif Knutsen’s comment, has it caused worsening droughts, forest fires, or storms.) The major effects, so far, are modest & benign warming (mostly at high latitudes, where it makes frigid climates a little bit less harsh), beneficial “greening” of the earth, and agricultural gains.

    Those are proven facts, yet most climate alarmists refuse to admit them, and many of them are the very same people who call those who disagree with them “deniers.”

    It also doesn’t help that the name-callers are often unwilling to engage in civil discussions with those who disagree with them, and that they even often seek to censor those who disagree with them, if they can. For instance, even though several people here, including Gavin, have written replies to Sheldon Walker’s comment, including a question, he is not permitted to respond to them here. When he tried to respond, his very measured comment was removed to “The Bore Hole.”

    “Valid criticism does you a favor,” noted Carl Sagan, but it takes a big person to be properly grateful for it. Sheldon’s criticism was valid, constructive and gentle, but I’m not detecting any gratitude for it.

  5. 1905
    Matthew R Marler says:

    I wonder if I am a “denier”, a “climate denier”, or a “climate science denier”.

  6. 1906
    Dan DaSilva says:

    Gavin, if a person believes that the danger of global warming is overhyped is that person a denier on that fact alone?

  7. 1907
    Mr. Know It All says:

    Would Europe benefit from a stopping of the Gulf Stream? Since the northern part of the NH is warming faster than any other place, why does Europe need heat from the Gulf Stream? Perhaps the stoppage is a good thing? Last I heard Europeans were dying like flies a couple of summers ago in the extreme heat.

    FYI here’s the Ocasio-Cortez Countdown to Doomsday clock:
    https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20310121T20&p0=263&msg=Alexadria+Ocasio-Cortez+Doomsday+Countdown&font=serif

  8. 1908

    The Science and Mathematics of Earth’s Temperatures.
    ==========================================

    Imagine a temperature model of the Earth, that can explain:

    – 94% of the variation in the average temperature, of every country on Earth

    – 90% of the variation in the temperature of the coldest month, of every country on Earth

    – about 59% of the variation in the temperature of the hottest month, of every country on Earth

    That would have to be a big, complex temperature model, wouldn’t it?

    What if I told you, that the temperature model of the Earth was based on only 4 factors:

    – the average latitude of the country

    – the average longitude of the country

    – the average elevation of the country

    – the area of the country

    Would you believe me?

    I am sure that many people will expect my temperature model of the Earth to be very inaccurate.

    You are welcome to have a look at the results of my temperature model of the Earth.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/the-science-and-mathematics-of-earths-temperatures

  9. 1909
    Victor says:

    35 SecularAnimist says:

    “Once again, the ridiculous troll “Victor” is leading everybody by the nose. His is the 2nd comment posted on this thread, and after that ALMOST EVERY COMMENT is about Victor.”

    Including this one! Lol! You guys crack me up.

    “Wonder why he continues posting his clumsy, clownish denialist BS here? That’s why.”

    No, I post here to inject a measure of common sense into the proceedings. But I have to admit, I do enjoy getting all you guys so riled up. It amuses me to see how so many of you can write so much without actually saying anything. And all the feeble attempts at bullying make me feel like I’m back in eighth grade. Nostalgia.

    Now as to the deep inner meaning of the phrase “cooling down,” seems to me that when we have a year that’s cooler than the previous three, it’s accurate to see that process as a “cooling down.” The notion that this phrase implies a cooling trend lasting beyond that year is pure assumption, a spécialité de la maison in these parts.

    And yes, “the sun’ll come out tomorrow.” I knew that. But knowing the sun will come out is NOT the same as being able to predict the climate. Most people know that too — but not Al Bundy. If things get warmer over the next few years, Al will take that as proof he was right. And if things get cooler, he’ll find a way to get around that by invoking various “natural forcings” that distorted an underlying warming trend. That’s how “science” works, no?

    And yes, the “hiatus” from 1998 through 2015 remains, regardless of anything that happened after that. Just as the hiatus from 1940 through 1979 remains, despite the temperature rise that took place over the following 20 years. Once again you folks are assuming I don’t know what I’m talking about, because you see what you want to see and ignore all else. The definition of confirmation bias.

  10. 1910

    Temperature and Population by Country
    ==============================

    How many people will die, if we reach the +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit?

    Does anybody know?

    Even an approximate number?

    It is difficult to give an accurate number, because it is a totally new situation.

    But I have found a way to estimate the number of deaths.

    It took quite a bit of work. But in the end, the answer was obvious.

    The answer is so obvious, that I am not going to tell you the answer.

    I have done all of the work so far. It is about time that you pulled your weight.

    Don’t worry. I am only asking you to look at a graph. Do you think that you could manage that?

    ====================

    This is the only graph that you need to look at, to fully understand global warming.

    It even comes with a money back guarantee.

    So what are you waiting for, click the following link:

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/temperature-and-population-by-country

  11. 1911

    How hot is that country?
    ========================

    To predict how climate change/global warming will affect a country, you need to know what the country’s current temperatures are, for the average hottest month, the average month, and the average coldest month.

    But the IPCC, and Alarmists in general, don’t want you to believe that. They want you to believe that ALL warming is “BAD”. And that ANY warming is “BAD” for EVERY country, no matter what that country’s climate is.

    Next time that you talk to an Alarmist, ask them if global warming is “bad” for Russia (temperature data for Russia is shown in the article).

    ====================

    This article contains 3 graphs, and 1 table.

    The table is at the end of this article, and lists all 216 countries in alphabetical order, along with the region, population, and temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month.

    The 3 graphs each list all 216 counties, along with a bar graph showing the temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month, for each country.

    ====================

    It is fun just browsing through the graphs, seeing the temperatures of the different countries, and trying to explain why different countries have different temperatures.

    But eventually, you will probably want to look up a particular country (like the country that you live in). Because there are 216 countries, you might find it hard to find a particular country. You can use your knowledge of a countries temperatures, to help you to locate it on a graph.

    If you live in Kuwait, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Chad, Qatar, Sudan, Niger, or Pakistan, and you are looking at the graph sorted by the average hottest month, then I suggest that you look at the bottom of the graph (they all have high average hottest months).

    If you live in Mongolia, Russia, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Canada, Finland, Kyrgyzstan, or Armenia, and you are looking at the graph sorted by the average coldest month, then I suggest that you look at the top of the graph (they all have low average coldest months).

    If you live in England (which is listed under the country name “United Kingdom”), then I have to say “bad luck”. Not everybody can live in a country with nice temperatures. I am just joking. But United Kingdom actually has the 7th lowest average hottest month temperature (+19.8 degrees Celsius, that is colder than Finland, and Russia). I lived in London for about a year, and I was amazed at how nearly everyone in England gets badly sunburned, whenever there is a sunny day. It is because they don’t get many sunny days, so they like to enjoy them, when they occur.

    ====================

    Time to get serious again. You can’t search for a country using the browsers “find” function, because the graphs and the table are all pictures. But there is a fairly easy way to find a particular country. Look it up in the alphabetical table at the end of this article. Memorize (or if you are like me, write down) the temperature of the average coldest month, the average month, and the average hottest month.

    To find the particular country on the graph sorted by the hottest month, find the countries average hottest month, in the hottest month “continuum”. The country will be near that position, in the hottest month “continuum”.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-hot-is-that-country

  12. 1912

    How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know what Russia’s average temperature is?

    I am guessing, not many.

    If you told them that Russia’s average temperature was +0.2 degrees Celsius, how many would have enough science and mathematics knowledge, to say whether that was hot or cold (especially American children, who are not familiar with Celsius).

    I am guessing, not many.

    How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that Russians live at an average temperature, which is near the freezing point of water?

    I am guessing, not many.

    How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that the average coldest month in Russia (the coldest winter month), is -21.1 degrees Celsius (yes, that is MINUS 21.1).

    I am guessing, not many.

    How many of the children who are taking a holiday from school, to protest about climate change, know that Russian children are also taking a holiday off school. To demand that the world increases global warming, so that they can survive in the future.

    I am guessing, not many.

    To increase your knowledge of other countries temperatures (average hottest month, average month, and average coldest month), read the article at this link:

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-hot-is-that-country

  13. 1913
    Mr. Know It All says:

    NASA says record cold coming due to low sunspot activity:
    http://spacecoastdaily.com/2018/11/nasa-warns-record-low-temperatures-could-be-on-the-way-after-latest-sunspot-activity/

    Greenpeace founder says AOC has a YUGE carbon footprint and her GND will kill all life on earth:
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-03/greenpeace-co-founder-rips-pompous-little-twit-ocasio-cortez-garden-variety

    353 – alan2102
    “As far as I can see, there is no intellectually substantial objection to these claims……”

    Can you see that big booger on the end of your nose?
    :)

  14. 1914

    Why is Climate Science different?
    =========================

    Climate science is probably the only branch of science, that doesn’t look at absolute measurements.

    Climate science looks mostly at temperature anomalies.

    To calculate temperature anomalies, you need to use absolute temperatures.

    But Climate science then ignores the absolute temperatures, and concentrates on the temperature anomalies.

    Why?

    ====================

    I have actual absolute temperature data, for 216 countries. For each country, I have:

    1) the temperature of the average coldest month (winter)

    2) the temperature of the average month

    3) the temperature of the average hottest month (summer)

    For this article, I have sorted the data by the temperature of the average month.

    ====================

    There are 2 other important absolute temperatures, that you should know about:

    1) the average temperature of the land (averaged by area, for 216 countries), is 15.6 degrees Celsius (this is the red line on the graph)

    2) the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the Earth), is 19.7 degrees Celsius (this is the blue line on the graph)

    Humans love the temperature to be warmer than the average land temperature. They choose to live in warmer places.

    There is plenty of cooler land around. Humans don’t want to live on the cooler land.

    But global warming will make the cooler land, warmer. It might become desirable.

    Countries with a lot of “cool” land, like Russia and Canada, will probably become the next world superpowers.

    I suggest that you learn to speak Russian, or Canadian.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/why-is-climate-science-different

  15. 1915
    NonScientist says:

    We have it on authoritative authority of a US Congresspersonage that the world will end in 12 years (now 11y 10m). Thus, there’s really no need to do anything, because no actions taken now will have any significant effect within that time.

  16. 1916

    A mild reality check.

    The total global sea ice area coverage over 15 percent per the CHarctic daily graph from the US national snow and ice data center just dropped below 15 million square kms. That is the lowest recorded since 1981, when that record started. Lowest ever for Antarctica, lowest this time of year for the Arctic. Here:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    The driver of this shift is core mantle boundary geomagnetic shift. I think, after 20 years work.

    Peter Spencer Ravenscroft, geo, Oz. p.s.ravenscroft@gmail.com

  17. 1917
    ab says:

    Climate scientists claim to be able to make a radiative budget of the whole Earth, but they are not even able to make a radiative budget for a single molecule, or for the collision of two molecules.

    They still rely on the “ghost photon” theory of the bohrian atomic model, which is an oversimplification of what really happens when a photon collides a molecule.

    Moreover they confound absorption of infrared energy with global cinetic energy and with thermic energy… Three very different things with different causes and different results.

    Thus, they believe in the existence of atmospheric effects that don’t even exist in reality. Sad, but true.

  18. 1918

    Why don’t you let “cranks” post their theories directly on “The Crank Shaft” thread?

    I have a theory, that if you wrap a climate scientist in tinfoil, then they can no longer deny absolute temperatures.

    Why is Climate Science different?
    ============================

    Climate science is probably the only branch of science, that doesn’t look at absolute measurements.

    Climate science looks mostly at temperature anomalies.

    To calculate temperature anomalies, you need to use absolute temperatures.

    But Climate science then ignores the absolute temperatures, and concentrates on the temperature anomalies.

    Why?

    ====================

    I have actual absolute temperature data, for 216 countries. For each country, I have:

    1) the temperature of the average coldest month (winter)

    2) the temperature of the average month

    3) the temperature of the average hottest month (summer)

    For this article, I have sorted the data by the temperature of the average month.

    ====================

    There are 2 other important absolute temperatures, that you should know about:

    1) the average temperature of the land (averaged by area, for 216 countries), is 15.6 degrees Celsius (this is the red line on the graph)

    2) the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the Earth), is 19.7 degrees Celsius (this is the blue line on the graph)

    Humans love the temperature to be warmer than the average land temperature. They choose to live in warmer places.

    There is plenty of cooler land around. Humans don’t want to live on the cooler land.

    But global warming will make the cooler land, warmer. It might become desirable.

    Countries with a lot of “cool” land, like Russia and Canada, will probably become the next world superpowers.

    I suggest that you learn to speak Russian, or Canadian.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/why-is-climate-science-different

  19. 1919
    bob says:

    What are the two scenarios pertaining to the global mean temperature in the Earth Energy Budget ?

    Let’s place our theorical thermometer, our beloved and tiredless perfect blackbody in the low stratosphere of the Budget…

    The best case is found by removing all the fluxes that are not radiative (yes, don’t ask me why, but strangely, they mix radiative and non radiative fluxes in their radiative theory…).

    And doing so, the Earth Energy Budget predicts an actual global mean temperature of 65,8°C or something near, if I recall correctly.

    Then, the worst case is by including all the fluxes at ground level, even the non radiative ones, let’s do like them !

    And what does one find ? A temperature superior to 90°C, dangerously approaching the ebullition point for water !

    So best case scenario: 65°C+, worst case scenario: 90°C+, instead of the experimental 15°C for the global mean temperature…

    The IPCC claims that climate scientists have an incertitude of tenths of degrees for the temperature in an hundred years… but in reality they have an incertitude of tens of degrees on the prediction of the actual temperature !

    Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Hi hi

  20. 1920
    Real Scientist says:

    “The climate sensitivity of the model is around 3°C global warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration, which is at the center of the range of current best estimates of climate sensitivity that range between 1.5 and 4.5°C”

    *current best estimate*

    lol

    The “current best estimate” of climate sensitivity has been 1.5K-4.5K for nearly 40 years now. So either:

    1) climate scientists have learnt nothing in the past 40 years (plausible, given the vast majority are primarily concerned with and selected for their politics rather that their scientific ability), or

    2) climate scientists are horrible at estimating confidence intervals, or

    3) the climate sensitivity confidence interval is manipulated to ensure that it includes values likely to provoke alarm, or

    4) all of the above.

    Either way, only a fool would base economy-destroying policy on the recommendations of climate scientists.