http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMgztyvgWhA

All the monies goes into his institute, what could go wrong?

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/



There's no way geothermal caused the ocean heat content rise.

Here's more on Lu. It appears his theory on GCR and the ozone hole are far from the mainstream. Also, he predicted a record ozone hole last year and it turned out to be average:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...d-cosmic-rays/

Yeah, I know "Real Climate is a propaganda site!!!" but it's a good discussion with links to the primary literature where Lu's theories have been challenged.

I do find it fascinating how AGW skeptics often happen to be CFC-Ozone depletion skeptics as well.

Don't forget evolution.

lol you haven't even read the paper, but you quickly search for a year old blog post to wrap yourself in. Why not try to take a look at the paper itself instead of going back to old realclimate posts?

And btw, this paper doesn't say there is no link between cfc and ozone depletion. I'd suggest you stop throwing out complete trash tyvm.

Wat? Linking to blog posts is totally standard ITT. Based on that blog post alot of people may decide not to read the paper. I skimmed it and people here probably aren't going to get alot out of reading it, unless they know quite a bit about atmospheric chemistry or are willing to read like 10 references also.

The blog post talks about half the paper and doesn't have any updated data. It's absurd to use it as a rebuttal.

Its very annoying is that any google search for the paper brings up blog posts, and the scholar search doesn't grab it at all.

It's a fine rebuttal to a university press release. I've actually looked at the real paper and the blog post improved my knowledge, so it probably will help people that haven't read the paper as well.

The blog link was published a year before the university press release max. How does it rebuttal papers from the future? It seems to deal only with Lu's old thesis from 2 or 3 years ago.

Any way I can look at the full paper as well?

I shouldn't have said rebuttal, but it was definitely worth posting because it deals with the same mechanism and linked to papers that dispute it which are important.

I can only get it to you after the break (don't have my vpn laptop) , but remind me then if you still want it and I can PM it to you or something.

I haven't read the new paper, but the I don't think Lu addressed CFC release changes in his old Letters. The way I'd explain it quickly would be:

1) Lu predicts huge ozone hole because of CR change
2) Average one happens
3) Lu figures out that dropping CFC levels are the reason, CR still related

The realclimate post doesn't deal with the big change in Lu's theory.

I'd really like to read the full paper whenever you get the chance.

I've tried to find the paper, but apparently it isn't indexed in ISI or anywhere else that I can find. (Edit: where did you find it, Max?)

And lol at you complaining about blog posts when it's clear that most of what you post in here comes from Anthony Watts' blog.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...43b7aa4c85445c

I'm not paying 30 bucks for it. If you have access go at it.

BTW 13, my problem isn't the 'blog' part. It is that its from a year ago and doesn't address Yu's updated theory.

Because your 50 years of Data (with I suspect poorer quality data for the early years) on a 4,500,000,000 year old body PROVES that there is NO WAY that "geothermal caused the Ocean heat content to rise". To put this in context, this is 1.1x10^-8 of the total history of the Earth, whereas 1 second is 3.3x10^-8 of a year. So the data you provided has as much context as taking a 0.33s measurement to analyze a yearly data series! Sure seems like "proof" to me!

I also, despite reading the paper that your figure comes from, can't determine what the actual heat content of the Ocean's is (just the "anomaly"), which makes putting this into context extremely difficult.

I also notice from the paper that it is all about finding the linear trend, and then 95% confidence intervals of the linear trend to the data (which isn't too useful) with no care for analyzing the error (and how that propagates) of the original measurements, which is doubly impossible when you don't provide absolute values for anything!

Just checking back in to see which side is winning. Can an unbiased yet dedicated observer to this thread pm me or just quote'n'post a quick response? ty, hh

Have you even researched how much geothermal heat flux there is at the surface? It's like 1/10,000 of solar.

First, that is of course a completely different argument (you started by merely providing that figure), and one that I have no knowledge of.

I would say that you are describing "the surface", and that this is ocean temperatures up to 700m deep (and is in fact not a measure of the total heat content of the ocean), which has access to more heating sources than the surface, especially through the Ocean trenches (up to 10km deep). So I don't see how your comment applies either, as the Earth's crust is going to smooth the resulting temperature variations considerably.

Not sure if this has been brought up in the thread yet, if so my bad....

Anyone heard of this Lord Christopher Monckton?

I found a good video of him on youtube hear which seemed to throw some very hard-hitting blows to Al Gore and the global warming movement in general. I'll let you watch the vid to decide for yourself though. I'd be highly interested on people's opinions of the video.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

Also, here's a slideshow presentation which mirrors the talk...be sure to have it open on a separate screen Makes for a much more powerful presentation.

Slideshow: http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...ckton_2009.pdf

It's not very difficult to find bad peer reviewed papers in any field.

I have 4 inches of snow on the ground. First white Christmas in Dallas, Texas in almost a century. Can I somehow claim it disproves MMGW?

Monckton is a joke. His arguments are a combination of misleading statements, factual errors and faulty logical reasoning. The fact that a guy like this is a leader in the global warming skeptic community is pretty good evidence of how intellectually and ethically bankrupt the opposition to the scientific consensus is.

Problem is the scientific consensus is corrupt. So it doesn't matter if Monckton is or not. The "champions" of global warming are tainted by their political activism and scientific corruption. It doesn't really matter who any individual skeptic is.