This month is looking like a complete disaster for the climate terrorists.
The overheated eastern US is facing near record cold. The permanent drought midwest is looking at large amounts of precipitation. The Arctic is very cold and sea ice is approaching the 30 year mean. All of their remaining icons are collapsing in real time – and Congress is reducing the amount of money available for them to embezzle.
Their criminal venture has had a nice run, but it is all starting to nosedive.
Climate Parasites won’t give up easy. How will they function after money for nothing? The desire for celebrity? The camaraderie of doom? Climate to these fraudsters is worse than heroin to a drug addict. They will continue to need their next fix.
Climate rehabilitation centers will need to be built, 10 step programs put in place to ween them off climate. Rapid response climate exorcists will need to be put in place.
When it comes to that, they would like to see the highest level of PPM they can get. Power, Prestige & Money, PPM!
A guide to the federal debt made easy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Li0no7O9zmE
The numbers say otherwise:
There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
We heard the consensus argument before! Just saying….
Complete and utter Bullshit!
You mean like this consensus?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
How did that “consensus” work out for ya?
Let’s investigate the “consensus” shall we? Since you have refused to reply to me, I thought I would take it upon myself to put forth the relevant information myself. Here ya go:
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Scientific Consensus Revisted
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/22/scientific-consensus-revisited/
Consensus looks more like a myth
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the
manufacture of consensus
http://goodwin.public.iastate.edu/pubs/goodwinipcc.pdf
Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax
Collapsing Consensus – Another German Meteorology Site Wonders About The Global Temperature Stagnation
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/25/collapsing-consensus-another-german-meteorology-site-wondering-about-the-global-temperature-stagnation/
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
Ninety Seven Percent Is Not What You Think
http://www.energytribune.com/9995/ninety-seven-percent-is-not-what-you-think
Team of Scientists’ Open Letter To U.S. Senators: ‘Claim of consensus is fake’
Devastating paper on IPCC consensus
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/16/devastating-paper-on-ipcc-consensus/
Engineers, geoscientists: only 36% believe in CAGW
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/11003-engineers-geoscientists-only-36-believe-in-cagw
Climate scientists’ “consensus” based on a myth
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10723-climate-scientists-consensus-based-on-a-myth
More About That Imaginary Consensus
https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/more-about-that-imaginary-consensus/
Interesting New Study — Destroys Two Alarmist Memes!!!
https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/interesting-new-study-destroys-two-alarmist-memes/
Consensus Not: New paper finds ‘no model consensus’ on precipitation projections
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/05/consensus-not-new-paper-finds-no-model.html
All this just to get you started….
Over the past 3 decades, AGW studies have never met the criteria of “Scientific Theory”.
we have been following a sideshow that is a “Working Hypothesis”.
Do you understand the difference?
So you ignore all the people who study this for a living? Just asking…
Yes… Check out watt’s up with that website and many more on its blog roll…
I mean no…
No, M>C> – Firstly, you make the logical fallacy of assuming that “people who study this for a living” must be right, and ignore the obvious bias that doing something “for a living” brings. You also make the false assumption that anyone who doesn’t agree with their manufactured “consensus” is therefore “ignoring” them. What kind of narrow world do you live in?
Are you not aware of any of the scientific arguments against the tax-funded official consensus view? Are you not aware that we are currently in an extreme-weather drought, while the alarmist rhetoric keeps implying otherwise (e.g. a natural extreme weather event happens and they say “this is consistent with predictions, we expect to see more of these events now, this is the new Normal, blah blah blah). And you suck it up! Ever bothered looking at the actual data? Do you still believe in the long-debunked Hockey Stick? Do you think Climategate was all about nothing? Do you think hiding the decline was taken “out of context?” Conspiring to have a journal editor sacked – out of context again? Redefining the peer review process? Do you think the three enquiries exonerated (I mean ACTUALLY exonerated) those people? Have you studied anything about those enquiries or listened to what the sceptics’ problem with them is? Well?
Are you aware of the deaths by starvation caused by Green policies that more than doubled the price of food and fuel in the last few years? You happy that the “science is settled” enough to justify those deaths all in the bigger cause? Do you trust the UN and the IPCC because they “do this for a living?” Jesus.
What I see on this board are kids rooting for Their Team. Very little serious debate on the Data. The Info. The climate scientists are reporting what they find. You think these weather people are the Revolutionaries? Highly unlikely. They don’t want the mess. Yes, I’ve seen the yak about the Stick, and the hoo-ha about the precious stolen emails (I read two acedemic inquiries that basically said it was piffle). But the numbers keep rolling in–from EVERY climate lab and institute in the world. Find one that disagrees. OR are they ALL in cahoots?
Wow. MC, you’re delusional. Keep taking blue pills.
I present tons of data. What I see from you is someone full of gossip and ad homs who makes no attempt to refute the data I am presenting.
“What I see on this board are kids rooting for Their Team”
If you can’t see the irony in that comment, you’re beyond hope.
Ignore them? Most of this blog is devoted to them.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
When you see a poster here mistakenly saying that it hasn’t warmed in 15 or 16 years, you are probably seeing the result of misinformation released by fossil fuel sympathizers such as David Rose. David Rose last year released an article that amounted to a lot of hot air. He claimed that the UK Met Office had indicated that the climate warming had stopped, and he further tried to bolster this falacy with a cherry picked and highly misleading segment of a temperature graph. The Met Office responded…”It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.”http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
The warming climate is a serious issue and it if people want to ignore it and hope for the best, fine, but they shouldn’t purposely repeat inaccurate information . That is scientifically deceptive and reprehensible and just plain stupid.
The ten years between August 2002 to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC (0.27 ºF),
which were warmer than the 10 years from August 1992 to August 2002 by 0.17ºC (0.31ºF),
In 2012, the average temperature was about 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit). This is .55 degrees C (1.0 degree F) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline, with the global average temperature having risen about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 degrees F) since 1880. The majority of that change has occurred in the past forty years.
Additionally, last week the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) released their latest climate report from 2012 and found that it was the warmest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States. The average temperature for the contiguous United States for 2012 was 13 degrees C (55.3 degrees F) which was 3.2°F above the 20th century average.
The data was gathered by NASA GISS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom. All four institutions tally temperature data from stations around the world and make independent judgments about whether the year was warm or cool compared to other years. Though there are minor variations from year to year, all four records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades, and all show the last decade as the warmest.
So what you are trying to say is that global temperatures are below Hansen’s zero emissions scenario C
Scientists emphasize that weather patterns cause fluctuations in average temperatures from year to year, but the continued increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere assures that there will be a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each individual year will not necessarily be warmer than the previous year, but scientists expect each decade to be warmer than the previous decade.
“One more year of numbers isn’t in itself significant,” GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
Carbon dioxide traps heat and largely controls Earth’s climate. It occurs naturally but is also released by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. The level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades, largely driven by increasing man-made emissions. The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, the first year of the GISS temperature record. By 1960, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory, was about 315 parts per million. Today, that measurement exceeds 390 parts per million.
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/99491/global-temperatures-continue-to-rise/#ixzz2M1dNxUgj
Ah, but this is so convenient when you don’t go back enough “decades”. This is why the Hockey Team had to try to remove the MWP. You know, the period where the “decades” were warming than today. Inconveniently, they were warmer without the extra CO2.
Move along, your argument is utter bullshit and debunked a thousand times.
OOpps… “warmer than today” … typo…
Hey M>C>, ignore these why don’t you? … eh?
Ask the Met Office
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html
Even the head of the IPCC says “no warming for 17 years”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/
There has been no warming in San Francisco since 1850, I guess we should all move there to escape AGW?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/no-warming-in-san-francisco-since-1850/
RSS shows no warming for 16 years, slight cooling.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/hottest-year-ever-no-warming-for-sixteen-years/
35 years no warming in Alaska (the “canary in the coal mine”, as it was “supposed” to be the fastest warming place on the planet. I guess not so much).
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/thirty-five-years-of-no-warming-in-alaska/
No warming since Kyoto was rejected fifteen years ago (HadCrut3)
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screenhunter_109-jul-18-17-10.jpg
Even the ever corrupt GISS data set doesn’t show warming for at least the last decade (Hansen can’t corrupt his data fast enough to keep up I guess)
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/trend-3.png
No warming in the tropics or Antarctica since way back in 1978 (beginning of sattelite data)!
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/chart_14.png
I guess Norway is safe too, no warming there since 1921 (and according to Jimbo no doubt!)
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/tromoannual.png
No warming at Baffin Island since at least 1940!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/baffin-island-midge-study-debunked-for-a-3rd-time-nearby-weather-station-shows-no-warming/
And finally (for now), to your point specific to the significance of 15yrs (NOAA, the Met Office and many others set this goal post THEMSELVES!)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/
This week, scientists at NASA released their global climate analysis for 2012 which revealed that Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The past year was the ninth warmest year on record since 1880, continuing what appears to be a long-term global trend of rising temperatures. The ten warmest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998, and the last year that was cooler than average was 1976. The hottest years on record were 2010 and 2005.
The analysis was done by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, comparing temperatures around the globe to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century.
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/99491/global-temperatures-continue-to-rise/#ixzz2MTzVVsat
Gordon Bennet. Another one. Where do they find these people?
Congratulations – you’ve just discovered that the climate changes and is different now to what it was at multiple other times in the past. I suppose until 100 years ago everything had stayed the same for the previous 4 billion years.
Oh, and while your regurgitating points about such and such a year being the warmest on record, you might like to ask all the consensus scientists who their current argument is going. You know, the one about what is causing the current 15-year warming hiatus. Not aware of that discussion? Head still up arse?
Sorry – “you’re” not “your” – fast typing!
Ever notice people who are quick to insult don’t have faith in their arguments?
97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
====================
even though that’s a goggley answer….
They don’t define which “human activity” do they?
…is anyone stupid enough to think an 0.01% increase in any trace gas would be able to do that on it’s own?…..yes, obviously
Oh, pelleeeeasse … Did you ever both to check into any of those “consensus” claims? Did you do any research at all into those studies? Those so-called “consensus” studies demonstrate clearly the opposite.
You really need to go back and do your homework. What does it feel like to be a complete dolt? How does it feel to be a mindless twit for the AGW scammsters? Do you enjoy being a useful idiot?
Yawn. They’ve been tracking weather for only 132 years? Lame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE&list=FLzbA4-e2uOumJMSPAS6BEtQ
And this is how GISS NASA does it (ie warm the temps).
Raw data for De Bilt (Holland)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600003&dt=1&ds=1
Adjusted temp for De Bilt (Holland)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600000&dt=1&ds=14
Please comment. There are many examples of these adjustments – hard to find now because it’s archived and hard to access.
RE: M>C> – “warmer temperatures”
Adjusted temperatures… there, I fixed it for you.
Thanks to the technical advancements brought to us by the former tobacco farmer there is a compact all purpose response to mc…bot.
Right. I’m looking for an honest debate on the facts. If you can’t handle it, sorry for you.
ROFL. You have not made any attempt to address any facts presented on this blog.
Start here:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
You are obviously not here for an honest debate when you post a lot of fallacious statements.
If this were true M>C> .. then I’ll bite!
Let’s you and I begin a debate on the “consensus” shall we? You presented to me a claim that:
Does this about sum it up? Let’s start by you first rebutting and refining your claim of “consensus”, then I will rebut with clear data and evidence to the contrary and we will progress from there.
You game? Or are you not willing to put your “debate” where your mouth is? hmmmm?
Come on, let’s go …. let the games begin…
What is your point there? They adjusted the figures? Was it meaningful? What are your figures? Plus you realize these figures are not just from NOAA:
The data was gathered by NASA GISS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom. All four institutions tally temperature data from stations around the world and make independent judgments about whether the year was warm or cool compared to other years. Though there are minor variations from year to year, all four records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades, and all show the last decade as the warmest.
“I think climate contrarians are doing what Johnny Cochran did for O.J. Simpson — finding anything to object to, even if it obscures the big picture. It’s like they keep finding new ways to say the ‘glove doesn’t fit’ while ignoring the DNA evidence.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2MUHPf8wp
You are not making any attempt to refute the data I am presenting.
Start here
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
Hadley data show no global warming for the last 16 years. Claims to show temperatures have stabilized +0.2 deg. above (what they were a century ago).
Here is a sad old fact: There is no basis to claim that there is an “anomaly” of 0.2 degrees above anything. That’s right, you read it here first. Data collection and normalization for the past 16 years IS NOT THE SAME as it was during the 1970’s. Put them on the same basis and guess what – you have no global warming. None. Never.
Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012
29/01/2012
Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.
“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.
“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”
blah blah blah blah blah
sounds like they need a Stalinist purge at the MET to get rid of the “misleaders” around there
I hope they hire you to lead the charge, send them your CV
Good reply. Lots of helpful data. These temps come from labs around the world.
Look, I am new here. I have read a lot about climate change lately, and came across this site that seemed to have some healthy skepticism based on fact, good scientific debate. I will give you data, and I expect the same. Not “I don’t believe that, you’re a Commie, you’re not One Of Us.” That’s not going to convince me. Back up your arguments please, in a civil fashion.
I am giving you lots of data
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/
You’re a tool or a progressive turdbag. Take your pick.
It is funny that warmist toads like M>C> now worries over a SINGLE year but ignore the temperature TREND of the past 15-20 years.It is well below the IPCC temperature models and below one of their high priest James Hansens 1988 three temperature scenarios too.
They are below all three of Hansen’s scenarios.
You can stick your insults. See if you can handle this trend:
The ten years between August 2002 to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC (0.27 ºF),
which were warmer than the 10 years from August 1992 to August 2002 by 0.17ºC (0.31ºF),
which were warmer than the 10 years from August 1982 to August 1992 by 0.17ºC (0.31ºF),
which were warmer than the 10 years from August 1972 and August 1982 by 0.17ºC (0.31ºF).
Temperatures are lower than Hansen’s zero emissions scenario C. Why do you keep ignoring this?
and yet, temperatures keep falling…..
see that little bitty uptic at the end?
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
“Why do you keep ignoring this?”
Because they’re here for an “honest debate”?
From Bishop Hill “The Great Still”
“Commenters have been noting the preposterously low output of the wind fleet at the moment – currently generating about 0.4GW or a tenth of one percent of demand.”
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/2/the-great-still.html
“The environmentalist argument is that by use of smart grids we can import wind power generated in other parts of Europe ”
One big problem
“a look at the current windspeed map for Europe suggests there may be a flaw in this plan”
Here’s an analogy: Suppose somebody puts a renewable energy heating system in their home. Finds it doesn’t work. Solution: Tear the house down, built another, just to make the new system “work”
M>C> ,
You need to look over this link that convincingly show that warming is NOT statistically significant (Near zero) and that it is well below the several IPCC report temperature modelling projections and below James Hansens 1988 three scenarios presentation:
Has Global Warming Stalled?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/
The air and ocean temperature data is not supporting the CAGW conjecture at all.
Here are the factors: 1. All climate labs and institutes everywhere say climate change is occurring.
2. There have been 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles from 1991-2012. 24 reject climate change. That is 0.17%.
Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.
That makes me thing something is happening we should take a serious look at
Yes everyone knows that the 1930s Dust Bowl is over, as is the Little Ice Age. The climate changes constantly, and always has.
Can you step up the conversation pleaae?
Yup you keep piling up the evidence for the rest of us that you are another warmist bullshitter who has fallen hard for the consensus fallacy.
“1. All climate labs and institutes everywhere say climate change is occurring.”
Really it takes people with science education and degrees to know that climate change is occurring? when rational people like me and other skeptics knew this by default because we are intelligent to know that climate change has been ongoing for BILLIONS of years.
Yup a stupidly ignorant warmist statement in vivid display.
“2. There have been 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles from 1991-2012. 24 reject climate change. That is 0.17%.”
The consensus argument that has been trotted out many times while warmist morons like you faile to realize that ALL of the official data bases for air and water temperature have tracked well below the IPCC’s temperature models dating all the way back to the first IPCC report of 1990.
Not only that the modelled temperature SENSITIVITY level is also way off the mark due to far below modelled temperature trends and the still never discovered large scale POSITIVE temperature feedbacks that never show up despite the many times warmist/alarmist few scientists keep pushing it with their “peer reviewed science papers”.
Your argument is daft M>C> and that is because you are a typical ignorant CAGW believer who will ignore reality to maintain the warmist propaganda.
He ends with this that clearly show how little he knows about the topic as it is brain dead statement:
“Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.
That makes me thing something is happening we should take a serious look at.”
How about the startling idea of looking at it from a skeptical viewpoint and see why the skeptics are so much better informed than you warmist/alarmists who are so busy pushing the CAGW propaganda to notice that ALL of the main elements of the CAGW conjecture have failed to show up.
Of one thing we can be certain:…….if it was proven, you wouldn’t be here right now
By the way your reply tells me all I need to know about you.
You are not interested in the overwheliming evidence that the temperature trends as shown in the link I gave you that proves the CAGW is not occurring at all and what is more ALL of the IPCC predicted and then after the 1990 report projected temperature trends from 1990 are way off the mark and the temperature trends from the 1850s are about the same in all three main warming events.
Here is the link for you to see that the last warming trend you guys cried over is not any warmer than the previous ones since the 1850’s.
http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-3546-post-211840.html#pid211840
It is the first of FIVE consecutive posts where I had to educate BUZZ on the reality that this latest warming trend that has stopped recently is nothing remarkable to the other ones since the 1950’s.
You are way over your head in being here trying to take on well experienced skeptics who have not fallen for the stupid warmist bullshit and media hysteria.
M>C> is obviously a bald faced liar when he claims he came here for these reasons:
“Good reply. Lots of helpful data. These temps come from labs around the world.
Look, I am new here. I have read a lot about climate change lately, and came across this site that seemed to have some healthy skepticism based on fact, good scientific debate. I will give you data, and I expect the same. Not “I don’t believe that, you’re a Commie, you’re not One Of Us.” That’s not going to convince me. Back up your arguments please, in a civil fashion.”
You keep ignoring Steves link where he lays his cards on the table about the many problems with temperature data use that are well sourced.
So far you have ignored mine ( Has Global Warming Stalled?) as well that convincingly show no statistically significant warming as far back as 1989 in one of the data sets.
So far you have not risen above the level of a warmist/alarmist bullshitter.
Feel so threatened you have to call me a liar? I asked “Steve” (whoever that is) about his “findings.”
What is your point there? They adjusted the figures? Was it meaningful? What are your figures? Plus you realize these figures are not just from NOAA:
The data was gathered by NASA GISS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom. All four institutions tally temperature data from stations around the world and make independent judgments about whether the year was warm or cool compared to other years. Though there are minor variations from year to year, all four records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades, and all show the last decade as the warmest.
“I think climate contrarians are doing what Johnny Cochran did for O.J. Simpson — finding anything to object to, even if it obscures the big picture. It’s like they keep finding new ways to say the ‘glove doesn’t fit’ while ignoring the DNA evidence.”
I got no answer.
And you do know wasssupwiddat is run by a weather amateur.
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.
I have given you lots of numbers, and you have failed to address them – choosing instead to gossip.
mares eat oats…and does eat oats…..but little lambs eat ivy
bwahahahahahahaha,
M>C> is so busy being a warmist babbler that he fails to realize that he has been given links by Steve and myself on what we think of the temperature evidence.
The link I gave you is 100% based on the RSS,UAH,Hadley/Crut,GISS temperature data but since you are an idiot you never went to the link to see what I was pointing out.
Werner Brozek went to the trouble in presenting the temperature data to show the present reality that there has been NO statistically significant warming going on since 1989 in the RSS satellite data and in the early to mid 1990’s in the rest of them.
You are thus exposed as a typical warmist idiot who has demonstrated no interest to learn and instead prefers to spew the gutter level quality warmist propaganda in replies.
If you have to call me names over this data, you need to grow up. Give me some info, and not from Exxon sites. Quote some actual climate scientists, not paranoid half-truths (“they are all lying! I see something that thousands of people who do this for a living do not!”).
A quick search will literally find anything you want in the world. The claim was that there is SCHOLARLY evidence. Not Googley evidence. Scholarly research is conducted by experts in the specific field (not just “scientists”). It is also peer reviewed by other experts in the field (often double blind anonymously) and there is no financial conflict in the funding of the research. Scholarly evidence is the only kind of evidence that is acceptable to be used in research for any Term Paper in a reputable university because unlike the internet, it is extremely regulated for accuracy. The claim was that there is scholarly evidence. This is always the dead end of this debate because it’s just not out there. Show me some. And not from the Koch Brothers please.
Here he goes on another long babbling run that does not address what Steve and I have been presenting at all.Not even one part of it is being adressed in any detail.
Just more disjointed warmist bullcrap is all we are going to get here apparently since this guy show how little he really knows about the subject as he is a programmed lemming who is here to pollute the blog with trolling garbage.
bot
Where does this ‘sceptics funded by Exxon/Big Oil’ BS come from? Fair dinkum! Here’s the truth.
Rockefeller Brothers Fund; The Rockefellers owned Standard oil and still own large chunks of the companies it was broken up into not to mention their interest in the banking industry.:
Friends of the Earth……..$1,427,500.00; 1994 – 2001
David Suzuki Foundation…..$1,085,000.00; 1998 – 2001
Greenpeace………………$1,080,000.00; 1997 – 2005
Environmental Defense………$994,363.00; 1993 – 2001
Ocean Conservancy………….$970,000.00; 1997 – 2001
American Oceans Campaign……$865,000.00; 1996 – 2001
Sierra Club……………….$710,000.00; 1995 – 2001
Earth Day Network………….$250,000.00; 1999 – 2000
World Wildlife Fund………..$120,015.00; 1996 – 2000
Rockefeller Family Fund:
Friends of the Earth……..$400,000.00; 1997 – 2002
World Wildlife Fund………$300,000.00; 1999 – 2000
Greenpeace………………$115,000.00; 2002 – 2005
Sierra Club……………..$105,000.00; 1996 – 2002
Earth Day Network…………$35,000.00; 1999 – 1999
Then we have the UEA-CRU; we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders:
BP
Shell
Sultanate of Oman
Speaking of the Sultanate of Oman:
Its main source of economy; oil fuels the economy and revenues from petroleum products have enabled Oman’s dramatic development over the past 30 years. By mid-2000, production had climbed to more than 900,000 b/d where they remain. Oman is not a member of OPEC.
In recent years, it has found more oil than it has produced, and total proven reserves rose to more than 5 billion barrels (0.8 km³) by the mid-1990s.
Electricity – production: 14.33 billion kWh (2004)
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 100%
hydro: 0%
nuclear: 0%
other: 0% (1998)
And than we have Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP). Guess where they get their funds from?
The GCEP sponsors include private companies with experience and expertise in key energy sectors. In December 2002, four sponsors – ExxonMobil, GE, Schlumberger, and Toyota – helped launch GCEP at Stanford University with plans to invest $225 million over a decade or more. These four global companies have collectively committed over $150 million towards GCEP so far. In September 2011, DuPont joined the Project as its newest corporate sponsor.
I’ve given you tons of data, and you give me one set you say were altered. How much? Did Tokyo alter theirs too? As for gossip, it’s called qualifications. Call me Krazy, but I think people with degrees and actually work in a field are better qualified than amateurs on Exxon’s payroll.
You are completely full of shit. No one here is on any payroll. temperatures are below scenario C.
Getting touchy, are we? I was talking about Anthony Watts, Mr wassssuppppwiddat. His data is paid for by Heartland Institute, shill for Exxon, big tobacco etc. They fought cigarette-cancer links for years. Any data from them and all their other funded blogs is suspect. Exxon and the Koch Boys et all have been dolling out millions to fight climate news so they can keep pumping carbon skyward.
good for them!
temperatures are below scenario C
Address that fact.
You understand the OJ reference? A small difference does not mean the entire case is false.
WTF does OJ have to do with Hansen’s failed predictions?
It appears that you are used to talking to morons who buy into your bullshit.
M>C>, You’re confused. Anthony doesn’t get any “data” from Heartland or Exxon, or the Koch brothers. Don’t worry, you’re not alone. Alarmists don’t understand the difference between data and advocacy.
You’re also confused about Exxon’s role in the climate discussion. Oil companies don’t give one whit about the climate discussion. If anything, they’d prefer a decrease in the supply of oil . It makes their profit per unit go way up. Again, don’t feel too stupid, this is a common misconception among alarmists. They aren’t very well versed in business nor economics.
You havent said a fucking thing to counter anything we have said here M>C> but post disjointed warmist bullshit.
I have posted full replies to some of your comments you posted and you back with whining bullshit without ANY counters in reply to what I said in any specific way.
You are a proven gutter level warmist who knows very little of anything.
Your “scholarly” warmist such as Mr Hansen and I have the same employer. The difference is, I draw a salary from one employer – Mr Hansen draws a salary from the same employer from along with any greenie outfit he can extort to giving him several tens of thousands of dollars.
So your “source of funding” argument is out the door. You have a big mouth and you will ignore the statement about Mr Hansen.
Give me your favorite study proving global warming. I will demolish it for you.
Why are you all so hostile?
when did you stop beating your wife?
Because we don’t like people making asses of themselves. Even you.
Mr. Hansen is not alone in this. You people tend to get all emotional about this. I am just dealing with the data. Clam doiwn. Why should I believe you when in 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject climate change? So far that OJ analogy holds up:
“I think climate contrarians are doing what Johnny Cochran did for O.J. Simpson — finding anything to object to, even if it obscures the big picture. It’s like they keep finding new ways to say the ‘glove doesn’t fit’ while ignoring the DNA evidence.”
M>C> says:
March 3, 2013 at 4:52 pm
. I am just dealing with the data. Clam doiwn.
, even if it obscures the big picture
ignoring the DNA evidence.”
=======================
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
“Why should I believe you when in 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject climate change?”
Because they reject the denialist ones. I know because I try. They are inbred to uphold their own consensus.
The important question is, why are the journal editors so hostile? They are hostile because greenie weenies like you will smear them all over the Internet with filthy talk about “deniers.” They want to keep their jobs.
I like this one:
http://berkeleyearth.org/study/
The Berkeley project’s research has shown, Muller says, “that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
I knew Mr Muller 20 years ago. He believed in AGW then. He never changed his opinion about anything – except one thing, UHI is actually a mirage.
I can’t take any more today, bye.
Muller says, “that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years,
=====
and he is 100% correct in saying that…….
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
I really like this one;
M>C> says:
March 3, 2013 at 5:04 pm
I like this one:
http://berkeleyearth.org/study/
The Berkeley project’s research has shown, Muller says, “that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
‘The Berkeley project’s research’ – or BEST, was funded $150,000 from the Koch Bros
A famous Ozzie saying;
Please explain?
“Getting touchy, are we? I was talking about Anthony Watts, Mr wassssuppppwiddat. His data is paid for by Heartland Institute, shill for Exxon, big tobacco etc. They fought cigarette-cancer links for years. Any data from them and all their other funded blogs is suspect. Exxon and the Koch Boys et all have been dolling out millions to fight climate news so they can keep pumping carbon skyward.”
Here he goes M>C> who is now completely off the topic and raving about Koch brothers and Heartland institute while DELIBERATELY ignoring the two links Steve and myself have posted that are ON topic.
It is clear you have no ability to discuss any science at all since you AVOID discussing it in any detail.
Another warmist who has nothing rational to present and stay on topic at the same time it is too hard for you do it because you are an ignorant warmist troll.
“Mr. Hansen is not alone in this. You people tend to get all emotional about this. I am just dealing with the data. Clam doiwn. Why should I believe you when in 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject climate change? So far that OJ analogy holds up:
“I think climate contrarians are doing what Johnny Cochran did for O.J. Simpson — finding anything to object to, even if it obscures the big picture. It’s like they keep finding new ways to say the ‘glove doesn’t fit’ while ignoring the DNA evidence.””
Why don’t you get off the worn out consensus bullshit and DISCUSS the topic at hand?
You are getting us angry because YOU REFUSE to stay on topic and discuss what we have been giving you.All you do is come back with more disjointed crap and wonder why we slam you.
You have NOTHING to sell here so why not go to a warmist blog and dazzle them with your fallacious statements.
Do you have any info not from Exxon?
GISS shows temperatures below zero emissions scenario C. You refuse to address this elephant in the room, so I say that you are completely full of shit.
And I am guessing that is not your real name.
I never posted anything that is from Exxon you idiot!
Try addressing the link I gave you intelligently and leave out the Heartland,Exxon,big oil and other stupid “what if” stupidity as I have not been bringing them up at all but you sure have because you have no science skills at all to fall back on.
Why is it so hard for you to address Werner Brozeks presentation itself?
Trash Talkin’ Trolls. It’s a grimy job, the pay is low, but they feel somebody has to do it.
It has been a long time since I have been confronted with a warmist who can make a decent argument that is on topic and leaves out the big oil and heartland funding canard.
But then it does not require intelligence to be a troll.
. I am just dealing with the data. Clam doiwn.
, even if it obscures the big picture
ignoring the DNA evidence.”
=======================
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
Help me please. What does this mean?
the big picture
How so?
That’s the big picture……
You have no idea what that is?
LOL!!!
we have a problem Houston
You guys are way to funny! You are picking on someone that does not recognize the BIG PICTURE and claims to know lots about “Climate Change”! Totaliy flippin hilarious!!!!!
I recall somewhere in comments here, someone saying something relating to the “big picture” .. oh yeah, I know, it goes something like:
Well there ya go M>C> … THE BIG PICTURE!!
dipshit….
M>C> You make repeated claims that the past decade was hotter than the decade before and the one before. There is a statistical fallacy in this argument that does not serve your position well. Allow me to point out the logical error to you. Going back over the past several millennia, pick any decadal period of time and take 10 consecutive annual measurements and ignore the rest of the chart (don’t look at history). You will get one of two possible outcomes. The consecutive measures will show either a string of years where each successive year sets a new warming or new cooling record.
When you’re done making sense of the foresight.org graph, try reading this article and let me know what you learned.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/measuring-sticks/
So explain to me what are you really measuring and what your claim really proves?
RE: M>C> – “Help me please. What does this mean?”
M>C>, Those are Greenland temperatures for the last 10,000 years. The graph is untitled, and no source data was supplied. Below is a titled graph. Without trepdiation, I direct you to skeptical science, who discuss this graph in detail. May I recommend you read the full article and comments, especially from NikFromNYC. He has to correct correct skepticalscience. To their credit, they let his comment through.
http://oi53.tinypic.com/sg2wav.jpg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
Asshole M>C> shows that he never looked into the link I posted titled Has Global Warming Stalled that used only the official temperature data from RSS,UAH,Hadley/crut and GISS where he post this as a reply:
“When you see a poster here mistakenly saying that it hasn’t warmed in 15 or 16 years, you are probably seeing the result of misinformation released by fossil fuel sympathizers such as David Rose…..”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/march-madness-for-the-team/#comment-198280
It is clear you can’t counter Werner Brozeks presentation at all and his goes back to 1989 showing NO statisticall significant warming trend.David Rose is not being used as a source you dumbass! but the actual temperature data that spans four decades based on the official temperature databases.
You are being exposed as another gutter quality warmist who can’t even make decent counters to what is being presented to you.
One person vs the scientific community. What are Mr. Brozek’s credentials? Did you say how all four labs fixed their temps?
If you don’t address the Scenario C issue, I am going to put you on spam.
You are pathetic since I have told you several times that Werner used the official temperature databases of RSS,UAH,HadleyCrut and GISS.
If you bother to visit the site and read his presentation you will have no chioce over that what he presents is based on the official temperature data of all these official databases listed.
But since you clearly demonstrate no scientific skill of your own you fall back on the credentials question instead.You are a proven warmist bullshitter who has no intention to a credible discussion on anything.
M>C>,
I have waited for a while to see if you did look at the link I gave you since I was hoping you wake up from your drug induced haze and realize that I was honestly telling you that Werner Brozek was using the official temperature data of RSS,UAH,Hadley/Crut and GISS and you still have not done so.Therefore I will now SHOW why you should have kept your gumby mouth shut and left it alone.
Here is the except from the link you never read and decided to just shoot off your mouth against Werner and the data sources he used:
“If you wish to verify all rankings, go to the following:
For UAH, see here, for RSS see here and for Hadcrut4, see here. Note the number opposite the 2012 at the bottom. Then going up to 1998, you will find that there are 9 numbers above this number. That confirms that 2012 is in 10th place. (By the way, 2001 came in at 0.433 or only 0.001 less than 0.434 for 2012, so statistically, you could say these two years are tied.)
For Hadcrut3, see here. You have to do something similar to Hadcrut4, but look at the numbers at the far right. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
For Hadsst2, see here. View as for Hadcrut3. It came in 8th place with an average anomaly of 0.342, narrowly beating 2006 by 2/1000 of a degree as that came in at 0.340. In my ranking, I did not consider error bars, however 2006 and 2012 would statistically be a tie for all intents and purposes.
For GISS, see here. Check the J-D (January to December) average and then check to see how often that number is exceeded back to 1998.”
and,
“Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to January) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990.
For RSS, the average anomaly for 2012 is 0.192. This would rank 11th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Both show all plotted points for RSS since 1990. Then two lines are shown on the first graph. The first upward sloping line is the line from where warming is not significant at the 95% confidence level. The second straight line shows the point from where the slope is flat.
The second graph shows the above, but in addition, there are two extra lines. These show the upper and lower lines for the 95% confidence limits. Note that the lower line is almost horizontal but slopes slightly downward. This indicates that there is a slightly larger than a 5% chance that cooling has occurred since 1990 according to RSS per graph 1 and graph 2.
UAH
The slope is flat since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months. (goes to December)
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For UAH the average anomaly for 2012 is 0.161. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.130 and it will come in 10th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to UAH. Graph 1 and graph 2.
Hadcrut4
The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to December.)
For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
With Hadcrut4, the anomaly for 2012 is 0.436. This would rank 10th. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut4. Graph 1 and graph 2.
Hadcrut3
The slope is flat since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
For Hacrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
With Hadcrut3, the anomaly for 2012 is 0.403. This would rank 10th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut3. Graph 1 and graph 2.
Hadsst2
The slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 10 months. (goes to December)
The Hadsst2 anomaly for 2012 is 0.342. This would rank in 8th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
Sorry! The only graph available for Hadsst2 is this.
GISS
The slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months. (goes to November)
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
The GISS anomaly for 2012 is 0.56. This would rank 9th. 2010 was the warmest at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.54 and it will come in 10th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to GISS. Graph 1 and graph 2.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/
Do you realize that I just clobbered you and exposed your anti-science mindset at the same time?
M>C> says:
March 3, 2013 at 5:04 pm
I like this one:
http://berkeleyearth.org/study/
The Berkeley project’s research has shown, Muller says, “that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years,
===========================================================
LOL, sorry M>C>, you lose all credibility by quoting such a flawed effort. Tell me, what was the global distribution of thermometers 250 years ago?
This is the problem with people such as yourself. You quote how many peer reviewed articles were printing but you uncritically accept them as factually based, when clearly they are not. Tell me, which peer reviewed paper on the Antarctic temps do you believe to be true and why?
Guess what–I am no scientist and do not pretend to be. I am coming in as an outsider. Do you see how hard it is to believe 0.17% (13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject climate change). None of you are doing a good job of clearly explaining why ALL the data on temps, ice, sea levels are wrong. Hysteria, yes. Clear facts no.
OMG. Everyone knows that the climate changes all the time. Can you please attempt to make an intelligent argument?
We long knew you have you science skill at all because all you do is post consensus babble and pointedly ignore TWO specific statements from Steve and myself because they require some science skill to understand them and make a credible counter to them.
You never have demonstrated any in this entire thread and that is why we make fun of you as the ignorant warmist troll you are.
And I call bullshit on your supposed 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles crap. You had better do a little reading up on the subject. This is complete garbage.
LOL, sorry M>C>, you lose all credibility by quoting such a flawed effort.
And exactly why is it flawed?
Are there ANY climate scientists here?
When are you going to address either Steves link or mine and leave out the warmist bullcrap?
Oh, my! I have to spell it out for you? I asked what was the global distribution of thermometers 250 years ago? That was BEST’s starting point for a global average temp. In 1755, the start point of the BEST temp graphic, they used 10 whole thermometers. They were concentrated in Europe and the NE of present day US to get a global average. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand how idiotic this is. BTW, many of your alarmist climate scientist friends rejected the conclusions of the BEST study. But, it did finally get approved for publishing. So, it must be gospel in your mind.
BTW, the statistic you’re quoting is very misleading. As Steve notes, no one seriously disputes that the climate changes. It has always changed and nothing has occurred to change it. Only an alarmist would think the climate should be static. It’s very nature prohibits that it be static.
But, it did finally get approved for publishing
==============
They had to create a new mag just for it
OMG. Everyone knows that the climate changes all the time. Can you please attempt to make an intelligent argument?
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.
Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.
As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate or how we got here. There is not a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes. What we are witnessing appears to be perfectly natural, with the exception of UHI influences on a local level.
The sky is not falling Chicken Little.
I have posted a link that showed the latest warming trend is no greater than the other two since 1850 and he ignores it.
What does that tell you?
I will spell this out for our clearly…
IT IS NOT
That is the whole point you freaking moron… There is nothing different at all! And all of this despite CO2 increases … case closed … crisis averted .. game over!
Even uber warmist Dr. Jones admitted that the warming trends since 1860 are similar with each other:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
There is no warming acceleration at all.
Wrong. It rose 11.2 C (~52 F). You need to get your facts lined up.
Again, you’re using statistical arguments that do not benefit your position because you are blind to climate history. I ask once again that you read this article (go to the very end where I’m comparing today’s trends to the past):
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/measuring-sticks/
Then tell me why “ten times faster” is a statistically flawed argument? If you’re going to argue from statistics you’ll need to show some prowess in statistics and not just blindly parrot what sounds good.
If you don’t address the Scenario C issue, I am going to put you on spam.
What is the deal with Scenario C? I am no scientist. Explain why it is so important to your thesis.
Another evidence of your profound ignorance but you have no excuse because YOU were given a link to it that explained what it is.
Correct, you are no scientist and you never will be.
If you are no scientist, why do you mouth off? You have no means to decide the truth one way or another. You have no means to comment on anything. Anything you are told might be true, might be false. So long spam sandwich.
Steve,
this guy is all wind and piss he has no intention to discuss anything in particular but employ a bunch of fallacious statements and off topic crap.
He is one of the worst warmist trolls I have ever seen on the internet.
Scenario C seems to fill up your world. I am taking about ALL the data. Again, did Tokyo cook their temps too?
Do you even know what Steve is talking about and why Scenario C is brought up in the first place?
GISS shows temperatures below zero emissions scenario C. You refuse to address this elephant in the room, so I say that you are completely full of shit.
The warming that is evident in the instrumental temperature record is consistent with a wide range of observations, as documented by many independent scientific groups.[29] Examples include sea level rise (water expands as it warms),[30] widespread melting of snow and ice,[31] increased heat content of the oceans,[29] increased humidity,[29] and the earlier timing of spring events,[32] e.g., the flowering of plants.[33] The probability that these changes could have occurred by chance is virtually zero
And I am guessing that is not your real name.
And I bet M>C> is more my name than “Steven Goddard” is yours.
Bwahahahahaha,
you still refuse to address it instead post more of your disjointed babbling instead that avoids it completely.You have failed to realize that you continually expose your profound ignorance of Dr. Hansen’s 1988 presentation in your replies.
I predict that you are about to vanish from here.
Sure–you can’t explain it to me. I ask lots of questions (Tokyo data?) No answers. if you ban me, it will prove you are in a Denier Echo Chamber, afraid of discussion and unable to exchange ideas without insults. I’ve been civil the entire time. Most all of you have acted rude as spoiled kids. You won’t grow that way.
You have been attacked because you attacked first. By spouting off all sorts of claims, failing to properly engage and explain your claims, that is an attack. If you cannot support your own claims, refute those questions to your claims directly, that is considered an attack and will be met with retaliation. What do you expect? Are you really that stupid?
MC, you’re losing the plot! Widespread melting of snow and ice? Increased OHC? Sea level rise?
Let’s start with the easy ones. Today, the global sea ice area is above the mean (1979-2008) The Northern Hemisphere of snow extent has remained virtually unchanged. You can see both here. The graphs and data are sourced by reputable academic and research facilities. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/in-search-of-the-lost-albedo/ Unfortunately, I can find no source for Southern Hemisphere snow extent.
Let”s move to the OHC. Presently, OHC is calculated by ARGO buoys. This has been a very recent project. It started in the year 2000, but the distribution of the buoys wasn’t very good until about 2003 or 2004. It still isn’t very good given the expanse of the oceans, but, it’s all we have. There’s been virtually no change in that time period. Estimates of OHC prior to 2003 are simply that. Well, less than estimates, more like guess and wild extrapolations. There’s no validity in such exclamations. In the past they gather data by throwing a sensor overboard a ship. I’d go into more detail, but, it seems you’re a novice in how data is collected and interpreted.
The Sea level has generally risen since we exited the Little Ice Age, as one would expect. Tidal gauges have shown no real change in the rate of rise for the duration. Satellite measurements are a mess. Many like to conflate all the satellite data into one as the university of Colorado does, but that’s a mesh of different technologies and precision. Still, even doing so shows a slowing in the rate of rise since the satellite ear began. ….. see Jason I, compared to Topex/Poseidon http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/
Have you anything else?
What’s taking so damn long? I thought I’d be able to play golf year round in Chicago by now. Is there a way we can speed up the warming or do I have to count on the Chinese and Indians?
Shit, I thought I would be playing golf here in Nashville by now this year too, but we just went through two solid days of snow! … WTF? … I am itching to get out onto the course, but instead I have snow and ice on my deck. All these years I was under the impression that I lived in the south, where it is supposed to be, how shall I say, … er, warm!
Even the Money People are taking note:
Last week, the World Bank issued a report summarizing the latest climate science. It concluded that the world is on track for 4 degrees Celsius warming by the end of the century — an extremely dangerous rise in temperature that ensure “extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise.”
Yawn…………………………………………
Another unverified climate prediction warmists love to wet their pants over.
Do you even know what the Scientific Method is?
The claim was that there is SCHOLARLY evidence. Not Googley evidence. Scholarly research is conducted by experts in the specific field (not just “scientists”). It is also peer reviewed by other experts in the field (often double blind anonymously) and there is no financial conflict in the funding of the research. Scholarly evidence is the only kind of evidence that is acceptable to be used in research for any Term Paper in a reputable university because unlike the internet, it is extremely regulated for accuracy. The claim was that there is scholarly evidence. This is always the dead end of this debate because it’s just not out there. I’m hesitant to say that there is NO scholarly evidence against climate change but I literally have never seen a single study refuting it versus thousands of studies that find it to be real and human made. I’ve even argued on twitter with a US Congressman who was unable to provide me with a single piece of scholarly evidence.
How much of your “findings” are reviewed in scholarly ways?
M>C> says:
March 3, 2013 at 5:53 pm
The claim was that there is SCHOLARLY evidence. Not Googley evidence
==================================
M>C> says:
March 3, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Ever notice people who are quick to insult don’t have faith in their arguments?
97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
=========================
…..wikipedia just got an upgrade
Have you read the methodology used to get that “97% of” figure?
Obviously not, or you would not use it as evidence of anything other than deception.
M>C> I can provide you with “SCHOLARLY evidence” (go back and find my previous comments to you) that the trends and temperatures we’re seeing today are not at all unusual or unprecedented but will you make an attempt to understand it and not just dismiss the data as something cooked up by the Kock brothers or Exxon? Therein lies the problem I think you need to overcome so that you can do a fair evaluation of the information available. You filter what you don’t want to see through conspiracy and authority sieves.
What happened to the tipping point?
The Scientific Method?
He he….
It still works for cows in Wisconsin but not for climate anymore. 😉
LOL
The World Bank? … really? … and you are complaining about Exxon and the Koch bros.? … Really?
My four legged children leave poopsicles in my backyard with more sense than you. WOW!
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of theAmerican Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
So you have not studied the methodology, and are taking someone else’s word for it. Did you know they started with 10,236 participants? Guess not.
Polly needs to stop parroting and learn to think on his own.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that humans are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.
Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.
As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.
In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage. They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.
Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings. Are you?
Based upon what science?
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
You can look up the other here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
Complete rubbish! .. As I have already aptly demonstrated…
Still no science? Just a contrived and meaningless statistic? That’s it?
You are truly clueless.
How do I sign onto the Koch Bros. or Exxon deal?
I would love to get some of their money to pay for my climate skeptic forum and the time spent fighting off a few warmist morons who bug us with their CAGW crap.
Anyone got the e-mail address to their grant department? I think it is about time I get my fair share.
You are missing out:
Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives.
The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.
Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust told the Guardian that her organisation assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes. […]
Donors exhibit sharp differences of opinion on many issues, Ball said. They run the spectrum of conservative opinion, from social conservatives to libertarians. But in opposing mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, they found common ground.
“Are there both sides of an environmental issue? Probably not,” she went on. “Here is the thing. If you look at libertarians, you tend to have a lot of differences on things like defence, immigration, drugs, the war, things like that compared to conservatives. When it comes to issues like the environment, if there are differences, they are not nearly as pronounced.” […]
The ready stream of cash set off a conservative backlash against Barack Obama’s environmental agenda that wrecked any chance of Congress taking action on climate change.
Those same groups are now mobilising against Obama’s efforts to act on climate change in his second term.
M>C> don’t start with conspiracy theory nonsense. There’s too much of it on both sides (actually a heck of a lot more of it on your side of the debate). All it serves is to distract from the real issues. Lets stay focused on the science.
Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection which reportedly netted more than $88 million in 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council, which reportedly took in more than $95 million in 2011 operating revenues, and the World Wildlife Fund that raised more than $238 million last year.
ECF partners include the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which awarded a $460,800,000 donation to another partner, the ClimateWorks Foundation in 2008…plus $100 million more to them this year. ClimateWorks presents itself as “a global family of affiliated organizations that support public policies that prevent climate change and catalyze sustainable global prosperity.”
The IPCC costs Western taxpayers about $6.5 million annually, and that’s but a drop in the bucket compared with the $2.6 billion the White House plans to spend on research into “the global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels.”
the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion in climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy”.
According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period.
OMB pointed out that their previously noted agency budget compilations didn’t include revenues lost for the special deductions and tax credits intended to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. They attributed those subsidies to costing $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses during 2010 alone, ($16.1 billion since 1993), bringing the total since 2003 to $122.8 billion. Then there’s also still another $26.1 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities within the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or “Stimulus Bill”).
Climate change spending won’t slow any time soon…not so long as current Obama policies prevail. A proposed $1.328 billion FY 2012 budget presented last June for its Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) aimed at helping developing countries address man-made global warming problems we have allegedly caused represents a 557% increase since FY 2008 ($202 million). Implemented through programs sponsored by the Department of State, Treasury, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), it is funded by the administration’s executive budget.
Lewandowsky gets $1.7m of taxpayer funds to denigrate people who disagree with him
Big Green Machine – GE makes $21 billion a year on “clean energy”
Yeah, let us start talking about where the money is being spent .. shall we?
And I call bullshit on your supposed 13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles crap. You had better do a little reading up on the subject. This is complete garbage.
Really?
13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject climate change
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.
I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that “reject” human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.
This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.
Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the “global” prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.
http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
More consensus arguments that has nothing to do with science research and the Sccientific Method.
There have been numerous consensus positions that have HURT science research in the past because it would conflict with a belief set being supported by dogma which is what a consensus is.
From a speech Dr. Crichton spoke a few years ago is this excerpt:
“Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists”
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html
Your consensus arguments are a dumb way to support the CAGW conjecture which does not appear to be valid in any way it can be examined
Consensus is that there is evolution and gravity, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Healthy cynicism is good, but there are times when they are right. I’m a rational person, and it doesn’t make sense to me how the 99.8% are COMPLETELY wrong. They are trained Climate Scientists. No one on here is. You are all tying your data to narrow temp studies and say ALL the weather data from EVERY lab is wrong. That is illogical.
MC, you should look deeper into your polls of scientists trying to make a case for the imaginary consensus. Doran (one of the papers in the wiki link you provided) got responses from 78 whole scientists. Anderegg, another paper in the wiki link, actually demonstrates that there is no consensus. Read here. Source links provided…… http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/anderegg-et-al-revisited/
“Consensus is that there is evolution and gravity, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old”
Consensus doesn’t verify science; experiment and observation does. If we told everyone to believe that gravity didn’t exist, we wouldn’t all suddenly float away. If you don’t understand the principle, you don’t understand science.
“I’m a rational person, and it doesn’t make sense to me how the 99.8% are COMPLETELY wrong”
Really? Then explain how the “consensus” used to be that there was no continental drift. Now the “consensus” is that there is. Same for heliocentricity (or as it used to be: terracentricity). In the realm of science, consensus means absolutely squat; it’s just another argumentum ad populum used by alarmists.
If you don’t understand some of that, look it up; rational people here don’t ask questions to which they can find out their own answers.
AHAhahah … Desmogblog? Are you kidding me?
Scroll up to the top and read my post to your “consensus” bullshit…
That’s a non answer. How is their methodology wrong? Where are all the peer-reviewed papers you got?
I’m a rational person, and it doesn’t make sense to me how the 99.8% are COMPLETELY wrong. They are trained Climate Scientists. No one on here is. You are all tying your data to narrow temp studies and say ALL the weather data from EVERY lab is wrong. That is illogical.
And 75 of 77 doctors who chew gum say Juicy Fruit is best! … that would be 97% of them!
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Scientific Consensus Revisted
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/22/scientific-consensus-revisited/
Consensus looks more like a myth
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the
manufacture of consensus
http://goodwin.public.iastate.edu/pubs/goodwinipcc.pdf
Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax
Collapsing Consensus – Another German Meteorology Site Wonders About The Global Temperature Stagnation
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/25/collapsing-consensus-another-german-meteorology-site-wondering-about-the-global-temperature-stagnation/
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
Ninety Seven Percent Is Not What You Think
http://www.energytribune.com/9995/ninety-seven-percent-is-not-what-you-think
Team of Scientists’ Open Letter To U.S. Senators: ‘Claim of consensus is fake’
Devastating paper on IPCC consensus
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/16/devastating-paper-on-ipcc-consensus/
Engineers, geoscientists: only 36% believe in CAGW
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/11003-engineers-geoscientists-only-36-believe-in-cagw
Climate scientists’ “consensus” based on a myth
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10723-climate-scientists-consensus-based-on-a-myth
More About That Imaginary Consensus
https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/more-about-that-imaginary-consensus/
Interesting New Study — Destroys Two Alarmist Memes!!!
https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/interesting-new-study-destroys-two-alarmist-memes/
Consensus Not: New paper finds ‘no model consensus’ on precipitation projections
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/05/consensus-not-new-paper-finds-no-model.html
I can provide you with “SCHOLARLY evidence” (go back and find my previous comments to you) that the trends and temperatures we’re seeing today are not at all unusual or unprecedented but will you make an attempt to understand it and not just dismiss the data as something cooked up by the Kock brothers or Exxon?
You really think they would give an unbiased analysis? Their sites are littered with half truths and distortions. I see their talking point pop up all over. They are following in the cigarette company denial of cancer link tradition.
You are now into repeat babbling now as I have already addressed most of your comments and you repeat the same shit in reply anyway.
Do you know what a counterpoint is?
I have not used anything from Koch Brothers,Exxon,Hearland at all but here we are with your boring no science based replies and that is because you have NOTHING to answer me with but bullshit.
What is clear is that you are a person who has ZERO science training and no demonstrated ability to carry on a conversation on actual science based topics.
M>C> Your asked for a rational debate of the science. Sure you alarmists all do but can’t actually hold one when it actually happens. Why? Because all you know how to do is parrot. You don’t actually understand any of the science so you resort to conspiracy theory and other non-science nonsense.
Steve has asked you to address the Scenario C issue. I’ve asked you to debate climate history in context to the current trends with me. They’re both excellent starting points if you really want to debate. You won’t make an effort. Witness that you’re inferring the article I referenced is popping up up all over (it isn’t), somehow I’m tied to some conspiracy and hanging my hat with the cigarette companies and whatever. This is typical of people like you who have no grasp on science and are incapable of actually discussing it.
I’ve called you out on several statistical fallacies and you failed to address them. You just move on to parroting the next items on your talking points list. At this point I’m calling you out on intellectual dishonesty.
MC, you’re losing the plot! Widespread melting of snow and ice? Increased OHC? Sea level rise?
Thanks for the rational post and info. Your data seems to be coming form one source. Mine is coming from labs world wide. Why do I believe your single sites over the climate scientists’?
HankH,
“M>C> don’t start with conspiracy theory nonsense. There’s too much of it on both sides (actually a heck of a lot more of it on your side of the debate). All it serves is to distract from the real issues. Lets stay focused on the science.”
This is all he has because he has ZERO science skills to use on us so he post conspiracies and consensus babblings as he ignore specific science based statements and questions by posting the same conspiracries and consensus babblings over and over.
Common SunsetTommy, we all know the moon landings were faked! 😉
Darn right it was. I have a photo of the fake set showing the wrong sun angle and wind blowing the flag. That and evidence of what happens to ships that sail off the end of the earth. Oh, and did I mention that the moon tilted 15% out of phase and NASA is covering it up?
AHahaha … ROLFMAO ..! … that’s great…heheheh
M>C> incredibly continues his science free crap:
“Consensus is that there is evolution and gravity, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Healthy cynicism is good, but there are times when they are right. I’m a rational person, and it doesn’t make sense to me how the 99.8% are COMPLETELY wrong. They are trained Climate Scientists. No one on here is. You are all tying your data to narrow temp studies and say ALL the weather data from EVERY lab is wrong. That is illogical.”
I see that you just ignored Dr. Crichtons point that Consensus arguments have hurt research many times in the past and that was just in the Medical field.
You are so bereft of critical thinking skills that I wonder if you are on drugs.
Your logic is once science is wrong about something, it is always wrong forever and ever and can never get it right. So no gravity, evolution, DNA, moon landings–never happened. ALL the world’s leading climate scientists are ALL completely wrong, and the amateurs on here who can not even pound out a sentence without cursing someone who questions them are right. NOTHING coming out of NOAA, National Geographic, The Japan Centre, the UK Hadley–NOTHING coming out of these labs is to be believed. All corrupt data. 13,950 peer-reviewed papers are wrong, and the Zero peer-reviewed papers presented here are correct. Is that a fair summation of your position?
And around we go with your circular bullshit………..
Rinse and repeat is all you can do………………….
Have you read the methodology used to get that “97% of” figure?
Obviously not, or you would not use it as evidence of anything other than deception.
I posted it so you could read and show me the deception.
It is irrelevent because it does not meet the test on what is good or bad,again I quote Dr, Cfrichtion who astutely stated:
“In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.”
Why do you think I keep bringing up THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD phrase over and over with you hoping it would get past your non science brain power but alas………..
They are reporting the data they are getting. And everyone is getting the same data. Are you saying these Climatologists are using un-Scientific Methods? And are you ever going to say how the data from Japan is wrong?
Your logic is once science is wrong about something, it is always wrong forever and ever and can never get it right. So no gravity, evolution, DNA, moon landings–never happened. ALL the world’s leading climate scientists are ALL completely wrong, and the amateurs on here who can not even pound out a sentence without cursing someone who questions them are right. NOTHING coming out of NOAA, National Geographic, The Japan Centre, the UK Hadley–NOTHING coming out of these labs is to be believed. All corrupt data. 13,950 peer-reviewed papers are wrong, and the Zero peer-reviewed papers presented here are correct. Is that a fair summation of your position?
Reply
sunsettommy says:
March 3, 2013 at 7:27 pm
And around we go with your circular bullshit………..
Rinse and repeat is all you can do………………….
And you never answer any questions.
Yes, I have read all about how the 97% figure was achieved. So you mean to tell me that because 75 of 77 so-called “climate scientists” believe human CO2 will lead to catastrophic overheating of our planet, that I should then believe that 97% of all scientists in the world believe the same?
There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.
13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject climate change.
These are climate scientists, not just scientists.
Bullshit
Your consensus argument illustrates just how little you know about this subject.
Dear M>C>
The significance of “Scenario C” in Hansen’s prediction is that that prediction was testimony before Congress in 1988 that, in a sense, started the global warming debate. Scenario C assumed no more forcing from C02 by the year 2000 (a shutdown of modern industrial society). That did not come close to happening (in fact the exact opposite occurred) and now, 1/4 century latter, All temperature records that you say are so reliable show that the earths temperature is below Scenario C! I guess opinions are like assholes but I would think that such an outcome would make any rational person question the assumption of run away global warming. You’re insistence that the last two decades are the warmest in the temperature record do not counter-dict what I have said about. Do you understand that?
Thanks for a civilized answer. What does a prediction 25 years ago have to do with temperature levels?
25 years ago was not the dark ages……and our understanding of CO2, climate, and weather has not advanced enough to have changed that
..if a prediction, only 25 years ago, from the leading climate scientist, falls completely apart
…..a rational person would start to question every prediciton
so far, the rational people have the best batting average
I think we should be going by “Scenario A”…that is the one where current CO2 levels follow. CO2 levels increase in S-A pretty much as they are in real life. Temps, of course, do not even come close to following S-A.
The last two decades are the warmest “in the temperature record”….but only of you define temp record as satellite records, which is what they do. Then anyone with any sense at all will look at past paleo temperature reconstructions and see it’s all BS.
If you do not define temp record as satellite record, then you have to explain why older temp records have been adjusted down in the past…and up in the near present…and justify doing that…..
M>C> would it help to know that I am a trained scientist. Yep, peer reviewed and many times published in leading journals with all those credentials you say nobody visits this site with. It might surprise you that my area of expertise does indeed qualify me to debate climate science with you. It might also surprise you that several other individuals who have attempted to initiate a reasoned debate with you here are also professionally trained scientists whom I personally know are quite capable of carrying a debate with you. Unfortunately you tend to steer away from them and for good reason.
Please understand that when I call you out on your statistical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty I’m being objective in my assessment.
Please understand that when I call you out on your statistical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty I’m being objective in my assessment.
Hey, at least you are nicer with your insults! Sorry I missed answering you before–I have had a lot to deal with. I really am open to an honest discussion of the data.
Now I said there were no Climate Scientists on here. I see in your bio you are a medical researcher, engineer, but I see nothing about being a climatologist. Which makes us all amateurs on here. All with something to learn and teach. My question remains about how ALL the data worldwide is wrong enough that you can catagorically say there is no anthropogenic climate change
I don’t believe that any one here has said:
oops, forgot closing tag….
There is NO data that indicates that CO2, and specifically CO2 (as that is what the whole discussion is about), drives the temperature changes that we see in this “world wide data”. In fact, quite to the contrary. The data specifically demonstrates that CO2 does not drive climate.
you can catagorically say there is no anthropogenic climate change
===================
is that “you” directed at Hank?…..or “you” in general
My opinion is that increasing a trace gas by 0.01% is not going to do enough to even measure…..if the planet was that delicate plants and bacteria would not have evolved to use much higher levels….if temps were that delicate, temps would be jumping all over the place….the planet would not have evolved like it has if it was that sensitive to a trace gas increase or decrease that is so small they would have no effect on biology
Plants and biology lowered CO2 levels to where they are today. Present CO2 levels are limiting to biology.
Do I think a doubling of CO2 will have an effect….no not much, and not enough for us to measure
All of this is based on a tipping point…CO2 is not supposed to do it all by itself…..CO2 levels have jumped all over the place and there has never been a tipping point.
I’m a biostatistician / mathematician. I’m not a medical doctor. I know enough about medicine to apply a bandaid.
Here’s the thing. Climatology is all about the numbers. It’s all about regression models, principal component analysis (PCA), predictive models, R^2 degree of model fits, standard error of the means, unstandardized and standardized coefficients and how they correlate to observed changes. Read any of those studies you’re linking to and they’re full of these concepts. It doesn’t matter if the subject is climate or nuclear physics. The math is essentially the same. Hypothesis testing is very much the same.
Wasn’t it a mathematician, Steve McIntyre, that called out the problems with the PCA in the hockey stick? Ross McKitrick, also a mathematician, confirmed Steve’s finding. You would argue that neither were climatologists and therefore unqualified to understand the science. They were more than qualified to understand the methodologies and hypothesis testing employed by the HS team.
Climatology, like any other branch of science is heavily dependent upon mathematics to describe observations, estimate theoretical changes in future observation based on predictors. That’s what you’re debating – the math! Climatologists would do well to hire a few good mathematicians before they publish least they avoid the pain of people like Steve and Ross picking their methods apart and showing them as meaningless.
Anyway, continue your dialog with Latitude. He can teach you.
25 years ago was not the dark ages……and our understanding of CO2, climate, and weather has not advanced enough to have changed that
..if a prediction, only 25 years ago, from the leading climate scientist, falls completely apart
…..a rational person would start to question every prediciton
so far, the rational people have the best batting average..
Completely apart?
The bottom line? Scenario B is pretty close and certainly well within the error estimates of the real world changes. And if you factor in the 5 to 10% overestimate of the forcings in a simple way, Scenario B would be right in the middle of the observed trends. It is certainly close enough to provide confidence that the model is capable of matching the global mean temperature rise!
But can we say that this proves the model is correct? Not quite. Look at the difference between Scenario B and C. Despite the large difference in forcings in the later years, the long term trend over that same period is similar. The implication is that over a short period, the weather noise can mask significant differences in the forced component. This version of the model had a climate sensitivity was around 4 deg C for a doubling of CO2. This is a little higher than what would be our best guess (~3 deg C) based on observations, but is within the standard range (2 to 4.5 deg C). Is this 20 year trend sufficient to determine whether the model sensitivity was too high? No. Given the noise level, a trend 75% as large, would still be within the error bars of the observation (i.e. 0.18+/-0.05), assuming the transient trend would scale linearly. Maybe with another 10 years of data, this distinction will be possible. However, a model with a very low sensitivity, say 1 deg C, would have fallen well below the observed trends.
Hansen stated that this comparison was not sufficient for a ‘precise assessment’ of the model simulations and he is of course correct. However, that does not imply that no assessment can be made, or that stated errors in the projections (themselves erroneous) of 100 to 400% can’t be challenged. My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model’s consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
makes predicting 1-2 degrees impossible, don’t it?
..You can’t claim that noise makes your prediciton wrong…and then claim your entire prediction is right because it’s within the noice
Completely apart?
======
yep, see above
And that’s in. No climate change because of this preciction 25 years ago was off a bit in your estimation (but not 97% of the other climate scientists).
There you go with the bullshit 97% again … do I need to continue to pull out all of the FACTS of the 97% consensus shit?
Are you that daft?
No climate change
=====
don’t you mean man made climate change
You like the temp record…..define which record
If you use the satellite record…you have the first 1/2 increasing..and the second 1/2 not
Can you say without a doubt….that it is a fact……exactly what man made global warming has done?
I don’t believe that any one here has said:
ALL the data worldwide is wrong ….
However, there is NO data that indicates that CO2, and specifically CO2 (as that is what the whole discussion is about), drives the temperature changes that we see in this “world wide data”. In fact, quite to the contrary. The data specifically demonstrates that CO2 does not drive climate.
How about this article:
Black carbon is much larger cause of climate change than previously assessed
15 January 2013
AGU Release No. 13-01
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON—Black carbon is the second largest man-made contributor to global warming and its influence on climate has been greatly underestimated, according to the first quantitative and comprehensive analysis of this pollutant’s climate impact..
The direct influence of black carbon, or soot, on warming the climate could be about twice previous estimates, according to an in-depth study published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, a publication of the American Geophysical Union, . Accounting for all of the ways black carbon can affect climate, it is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m2), approximately two-thirds of the effect of the largest man made contributor to global warming – carbon dioxide.
“This study confirms and goes beyond other research that suggested black carbon has a strong warming effect on climate, just ahead of methane,” said co-lead author David Fahey of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The study, a four-year, 232-page effort, led by the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry (IGAC) Project, is likely to guide research efforts, climate modeling, and policy for years to come, the authors and other scientists familiar with the paper said..
The report’s best estimate of direct climate influence by black carbon is about a factor of two higher than most previous work. This includes the estimates in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment, which were based on the best available evidence and analysis at that time.
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-01.shtml
Now you are talking about soot. Obfuscate much? … You’re a pretty good dancer, I would suggest you try out for Dancing With The Stars. You certainly are doing well with Dancing With The Climate.
Do you realize that “black” carbon is not CO2 don’t you?
IPCC AR4 was very clear on the point that CO2 or at least GHG’s were now the primary drivers of climate, at least from the mid twentieth century onwards. Are you saying 97% of climate scientists are wrong? 😉
There you go with the bullshit 97% again … do I need to continue to pull out all of the FACTS of the 97% consensus shit?
Are you that daft?
How many studies do you want? There’s 8 in the past 8 years–all high 90s. 13.950 peer-reviewed papers. Where am I wrong on this?
About two hours ago I asked for any peer-reviewed paper from this group. None have come out.
I asked why ALL the worldwide data, Tokyo for example, was off. I asked by how much. No answers.
I asked why I should believe you and not 97% of the trained Climate Scientists. Most of you have given me scorn, a few have answered like civilized people. And some mixed. I’m not here to give you a hard time. Show me your arguments (why you amateurs are right and the Climatologists are wrong).
Sunsettommy posited a long piece on Scientific Consensus and how that can be constricting. Of course, but science is a process. Rejecting something because 97% think it is so is no reason to reject. Question yes, but reject out of hand, no. By his logic, science is always wrong. He never answered that either.
The 97% of scientists agreed with the claim that the Earth has warmed recently. (It’s actually been warming for 300 years more or less steadily.) And if there is a “significant” human influence. “Significant” has a technical meaning among scientists and means measurable/detectable. Sceptics think the Earth has been warming for 300+ years and also think added GHG’s will warm the Earth, by at least 0.5C and probably more, and a good part of that warming has already happened. Therefore there is no disagreement between the sceptical position and the scientific position.
MC, I think people get upset with you because you make up a bullshit claim and assert that 97% of scientists automatically agree with whatever crap you just thought up. That type of argument is about political rhetoric and not science.
These are quotes, “Will.” I make nothing up here.
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes
Since you’ve been using google..I guess it’s ok
I googled this….
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
“These are quotes, “Will.” I make nothing up here.”
What I wrote exactly agrees with your quotes. Your opinions on the matter, however, well that is a different story.
Mc, define what you mean by global warming.
That poll says “earths climate is being affected by human activities”
It does not say that CO2 causes global warming
If you asked me if earth’s climate is being affected by human activities….I would say yes
If you asked me if it was due to CO2…..I would say not enough that you could measure
Hey, perhaps M>C> is finally beginning to learn something here.
M>C>, you are absolutely correct that 75 of 77 scientists agree that there is global warming and that humans are to blame. And you are also correct that it is indeed 97% (75/77). But what you fail to realize, that the 75 scientists is NOT 75 out of 77 of all scientists, it is exactly 75 out of 77 of the scientists that this study was narrowed down to. That’s right! This study began with a plethora of scientists, and from there they trimmed down through their criteria until there were just 77 left that fit the criteria which they then reported as a consensus. If you read about their process, you will quickly learn that it as a bad joke at best. Using their method, I could make a consensus out of anything I wish. In the end, the entire survey only included 77 scientists .. TOTAL!
Gosh! I just love the confirmation bias these studies drip with. There’s the oft used saying that if you torture data enough it will say anything. These studies will become classic examples of this principle.
You are wrong BECAUSE you use the consensus argument as evidence that they are correct and that is why we attack you so much because that is NOT how reproducable science research is done.
Even the “consensus” argument is nonsense, because there is no consensus by any reasonable definition, when it comes to those issues being debated.
How many surveys would it take to show you otherwise?
Here’s 8. All hig 90s. Got any that say otherwise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
I don’t make this stuff up, I’m just reporting what I see in the rest of the world. People who do this for a living think there a problem we should look at. I am curious why people resist that so vigorously (and at times defensively).
And I can give you clear refutation of every single one of those. These have all been debunked many moons ago. Four of them simply refer to the others first of all, and of the other four, they are demonstrably bullshit.
If you look carefully at these types of surveys this is what you will find. If you use a methodology focused on who has published the most on global warming, then you will get 90% or better (even near 100%) arguing for a strong human influence. But it depends on the questions being asked. A Wikipedia article is not peer reviewed, so it tends to be heavily influenced by activist spin. One has to dig a little deeper.
Now, if you instead ask climate scientists as a whole what they think then you’re going to find about 20-40% are sceptical of the above claims. The change in % is also related to the time period of the survey. Opinions do change over relatively short time periods.
The Wiki article that MC linked to is amusing because it actually compares two different set of questions. One is “largely caused by humans” – that’s the 51% or greater claim out of the IPCC report. And the other claim is about there being no measurable human effect. Which nearly nobody, including sceptics, would agree with. If the person who put this page together compared apples to apples they would get a radically different result, which is why they have to play these games instead.
Global warming has a distinct greenhouse signature
As far back as the mid 1800s, Tyndall predicted that greenhouse warming should cause nights to warm faster than days. This is because at night, the Earth’s surface cools by radiating heat out to space. Greenhouse gases trap some of this heat, slowing the night-time cooling. It took over 130 years before Tyndall’s prediction was confirmed. Over the last few decades, surface measurements have observed nights warming faster than days (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006, Zhou 2009).
Tyndall made another prediction of what greenhouse warming should look like. Just as greenhouse gases slow down nighttime cooling, they also slow down winter cooling. So Tyndall anticipated winters warming faster than summers. Again, recent analysis of temperature trends over the last few decades bear this out (Braganza et al 2003, Braganza et al 2004). Both thermometers and satellites find winters warming faster than summers.
And the evidence continues to build. Another distinctive greenhouse pattern can be found in the atmosphere. With heat being trapped, we expect to see the lower atmosphere to warm. But with less heat escaping to space and more carbon dioxide in the stratosphere, we also expect to see the upper atmosphere cool. Satellites and weather balloons both observe this curious contrast between upper cooling and lower warming (Jones 2003).
With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003). An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. Satellites measure this effect (Laštovika 2006). We are changing the very structure of our atmosphere.
What’s fascinating about all these greenhouse signatures is they also rule out a number of other potential causes of global warming. If the sun was causing global warming, it would cause summers to warm faster than winter, days to warm faster than nights and the upper atmosphere to warm. Observations rule out the sun.
Similarly, the pattern of ocean warming rules out ocean cycles as the driver of global warming. The world’s oceans have been building up heat over the past half century. This isn’t a case of heat shifting around due to ocean cycles but the entire global ocean system building up heat. The specific pattern of ocean warming, with heat penetrating from the surface, can only be explained by greenhouse warming (Barnett 2005).
Current global warming shows all the distinctive signatures of greenhouse warming. To be skeptical that humans are causing global warming, you must believe two things. Something unknown is causing warming that happens to mirror the greenhouse effect. And something unknown is somehow suppressing the well understood (and well observed) greenhouse effect. So we can accept what we know to be true (greenhouse warming) or we accept two unknowns.
The saying goes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. But climate skeptics are trying to convince us it’s some other, undefined animal impersonating a duck that’s also mysteriously hiding the real duck.
One of those distinct signatures, which can be more readily separated from other types of influences, is a strong warming trend in the mid troposphere. This trend should be greater in this region relative to the surface. Because it’s never been observed, in fact, observations are opposite to model expectations, people remain sceptical of the theory.
That is interesting, you and Latitude’s posts, and reasonable.
Looking around the net, the answers are cloudy–very hard to measure the temps there well.
Most of us just see a different duck….
I see almost all of the temp increase before man made CO2
I see less than a 1/2 degree increase in temps since then.
…I feel a 1/2 degree is way beyond our ability to measure the temp, and it’s noise
Well put. I appreciate a succinct, honest answer, with no extra krap.
What about these measurements?
Ice cores
One proxy method is to drill into glaciers and ice sheets to extract ice samples. Since the ice was formed from snow that fell over the centuries, the deeper you drill, the farther back in time you are looking.
The chemical composition of the ice correlates very strongly with temperature. Scientists have constructed temperature records from ice cores taken from Tibetan and Andean glaciers, an ice cap in the Canadian Arctic, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. These records show that, at low latitudes, 20th century climate was unusually warm compared to the previous 2,000 years.
In the Canadian Arctic, warming over the past 150 years is unprecedented compared to the previous millennium. In Greenland and coastal Antarctica, there is clear evidence of warming over the past century. Ice cores from Antarctica’s interior do not show warming over the past century.
Tree rings
In temperate regions, trees generally produce one ring a year, and some tree species are extremely long-lived. (A bristlecone pine, for example, can live more than 4,000 years.) Patterns in the width and density of tree rings provide year-by-year temperature information.
Scientists have tree ring records from more than 2,000 sites on all inhabited continents, though most of the records are from temperate areas of the Northern Hemisphere. These records show that 20th century warming was unusual compared to at least the past 500 years.
Coral reefs
Corals build their hard skeletons with annual bands of calcium carbonate. The geochemical composition of each annual band varies depending on the temperature of the water at the time the band was formed. Scientists have coral proxy records from the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans, with most of these going back 400 years. Coral proxy records indicate sea surface warming in most tropical locations over the past century.
one of those I’m directly responsible for….
You have to keep your eye on the pea….it’s all in the wording
—–
“These records show that, at low latitudes, 20th century climate was unusually warm compared to the previous 2,000 years.”
and at high lats, they were the opposite…..there’s an easy answer for this…think 2000 years ago
——-
“In the Canadian Arctic, warming over the past 150 years is unprecedented compared to the previous millennium”
..that is also 100% correct……only they don’t mention that there millennium starts and the peak of the MWP….for the first 850 years temps were falling…that last little 150 year uptic makes it unprecedented…
——
“These records show that 20th century warming was unusual compared to at least the past 500 years.”
Yep 100% correct again…….but the first 450 years temps were falling…it’s only unusual because temps started going back up to normal
————
“400 years. Coral proxy records indicate sea surface warming in most tropical locations over the past century”
if they are claiming the same thing, yep 100% correct again………it was called the MWP and the LIA
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
“The saying goes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.”
Sure, but the next question is if it is a small duck or a big dangerous one. Which is never asked, except by climate sceptics.
Lindzen’s satellite measured value for 2XCO2 is 0.5-1.3 C. Which under this definition is a duck. A small harmless one.
But at a 2XCO2 of 0.7 C the amount of temperature rise in HadCRUT last century due to CO2 is only about 1/6th of the total.
And the other two creatures in the 20th C temperature rise menagerie are the solar dynamo and the ocean cycles, which respectively explain 3/6ths and 2/6ths of the total (which the IPCC in AR4 gives as 0.74 C).
The point about the ocean cycles is not that they contribute to warming, but that they contribute about 0.3 C of the HadCRUT 3v temperature rise between the artificial dates of 1900 and 2000, because the cycle was at bottom in 1900 and peaked in 2000 1.5 wavelengths later.
And if you read the linked paper on the solar dynamo influence, and work out the effect on 20th C temperature for yourself, you will see it does explain half of 20th C temperature rise. The recent work at CERN and the Uni of Aarhus is starting to explain just why this relationship happens.
The UK Met office has recently acknowledged the latter, at least to some extent, since they now think that temperature will stay reasonably static for the next 4 years. NASA GSFC has recently noticed the former. All that is required is for them to compare notes and implement these empirical data in their repective GCM’s and well get a better fit to the temperature record, without ‘aerosols-black carbon-volcanoes’ ever evolving epicyclic attempts to fit high sensitivity to the temperature record.
Thanks very much for a great answer! Good food for thought…I am hoping climate change is not going to be as bad as forecast. I hope you all are right and things will cool off a bit. What about the next El Nino effect?
I would go even further. I have heard the CO2 doubling meme for a long time. What I have not seen is a clear definition as to a double of CO2 from where? A doubling from 100ppmv? from 200ppmv? from 300ppmv?
What I have seen, is an assessment in the framework of physics that says we have already exhausted all measurable temperature effects that CO2 “could” have, and at less that even 300ppmv. The problem with the double of CO2 hypothesis is that we have already saturated the possible bandwidth of IR that could be affected by CO2, and any additional CO2 will have no effect from here on out. There are a lot of papers and experiments the demonstrate this.
For me it is all moot anyway. It does not matter how much you warm the atmosphere, as long as the ground underneath is warmer, the atmosphere cannot contribute to the warming of the ground (2nd law of thermodynamics). A couple of years ago, Dr. Roy Spencer got his hat handed to him in the debate over whether or not a colder object could make a warmer object warmer still. It absolutely cannot. Not by any means or measure. This is a fundamental of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Again, my contention is, it does not make any difference how many times you double CO2 as any effect has already been saturated, assuming that you can actually trap heat with a gas (which you can’t). And assuming that there are significant positive feedback’s, which there aren’t.
If a tipping point were remotely possible, and a runaway GHE were possible, it would have already happened within the 4+ billion years age of our planet. There have been times in our past where CO2 has been well over 7,000ppmv, Where was the “global warming” then? One such period was during an ice age! No tipping points were reached, no catastrophic global warming occurred, none….
hey Bruce……thanks!
The el Nino pattern also follows the 60 year cycle. Which is one reason why here in eastern Australia we’ve had lots of rain from three la Nina’s in the last 3 years, with only one weak el Nino in the second half of last year. When the PDO and AMO flip into the ~30 year cooling phase, as has now happened, you tend to see more la Ninas and fewer and weaker el Ninos. See the table at page 5 of this link.
Here is a question for you M>C> to answer if you have minimal science skills to draw on,I dare you!
The IPCC 2001 and 2007 reports published a range of temperature modeling scenarios to year 2100 and the projected temperature increase range above 3C to that year.
Question:
Can you explain why you think this is good science research and why we should take it seriously?
squid2112 says:
March 3, 2013 at 9:06 pm
And I can give you clear refutation of every single one of those. These have all been debunked many moons ago. Four of them simply refer to the others first of all, and of the other four, they are demonstrably bullshit.
Really? You keep typing they are BS, with no proof.
After that please tell me about the 13,950 peer-reviewed articles…
And then about why Japan’s data is also off…
I’ll take a stab at that after you tell me why all the rest of the worldwide weather data is suspect. Tokyo–been asking the question all day. Before you can give me your data, you have to tell me how ALL the rest of the data is wrong.
And how illogical it is to say Scientific Consensus is wrong. Science is a process. My take is when 97% of scientists say something, it is worth looking at, and not rejecting out of hand because 97% agree.
STOP REPEATING THE SAME SHIT!
It has been answered many times and still you push it over and over…………….
To repeat, although you keep ignoring this point. The scientific consensus is not what you think is true. The main consensus is that it’s been warming for 300+ years more or less steadily. That consensus doesn’t help you very much in supporting your other arguments.
I get surveyed….
Here’s the way it works
Do you believe man affects temps……yes, of course
…you are never asked anything about CO2
..then some internet yoyo runs with it….saying 165% of scientists say we can measure the world’s temp within 1/100th of a degree…and a 0.01% increase in a trace gas is going to kill us all…….and a doubling to 0.02% will turn us all into fried chicken
…even though not one bit of that makes even the smallest amount of sense
M>C> wrote this crap:
“How many surveys would it take to show you otherwise?
Here’s 8. All hig 90s. Got any that say otherwise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png”
It is clear that OPINIONS is more important than verifiable research.
I am glad you cleared that up.
“I don’t make this stuff up, I’m just reporting what I see in the rest of the world. People who do this for a living think there a problem we should look at. I am curious why people resist that so vigorously (and at times defensively).”
It is YOU who has no idea how research is done and that scientists does not use the consensus method driving the research because they follow something far better called The SAcientific Method.
It is clear that you are anti-research and have no science skills to show.
I wonder if you have been brainwashed since all you do is push consesnsus and ignore overwhelming evidence that there is no statistically evident warming trend going on and even DR. Pachauri and Dr. Hansen themselves admit this in the last week.
This is why warmists are losing the argument everywhere because they are so anti science and plain stupid with their warmist propaganda.
Tommy, you’re still missing the point. If both of us agree that there is a widespread scientific consensus that evolutionary theory is true, and then, say, MC asserted that blacks are dumber than whites because they came out of the jungle later than whites, and this must be true because 97% of molecular biologists believe evolutionary theory is true, it doesn’t follow that MC’s assertion about blacks is true.
Or in other words, you need to look at each claim on a case by case basis and dispense with the political rhetoric.
Agreed–and when 97% of thousands of opinions agree, it’s called a consensus. I know you all are spooked by this–I would be too. If 97% of 1000 cancer specialists said I had cancer, I would look into it. But that’s just me, on this page anyway.
Stop with the damn consensus crap already. I have debunked your claim several times. SHUT UP!
You should read past headlines:
THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.
Hansen: Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade (emphasis added). It should be noted that the “standstill” temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that “global warming has stopped”.
But Hansen and colleagues argue that that the global temperature trend won’t stay stopped:
… the continuing planetary energy imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales. Moreover, our interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade, suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably into the next El Nino phase.
MC, here’s your little peaks and valleys…….5 years!……..30-40 years? don’t make me laugh
…we right back where we started from……CO2 or no CO2
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
We know what their opinions are. The reason why sceptics are sceptical is because their opinions in the past have been shown to be wrong. (At least those that are specific and testable.) This doesn’t bode well for their next set of opinions. That doesn’t prove that their new predictions will be wrong, but one might reasonably ask why we should give them much credence.
STOP REPEATING THE SAME SHIT!
It has been answered many times and still you push it over and over……………
No one answers those questions. You never do. You rant and fulminate, and explain none of your data or thinking. And I guarantee you every one of those 13,950 papers were done using the Scientific Method. These peer-reviewed opinions have formed a consensus. I have asked you all day why I should believe you, the 3%, and not the 97. Some people on here have given me reasons, information. Others have shown me tin foil hat mentalities. Mostly you show ONE chart and say look–that’s it! Gosh–how did the thousands of real climatologists miss that? Then you purposefulness misquote Hansen and Pachauri even though the full stories go on to say they see this as short lived, and the warming trend continues. hat’s not Scientific Methodology–that’s half truths.
Scholarly research is conducted by experts in the specific field (not just “scientists”). It is also peer reviewed by other experts in the field (often double blind anonymously) and there is no financial conflict in the funding of the research. Scholarly evidence is the only kind of evidence that is acceptable to be used in research for any Term Paper in a reputable university because unlike the internet, it is extremely regulated for accuracy. The claim was that there is scholarly evidence. This is always the dead end of this debate because it’s just not out there. I’m hesitant to say that there is NO scholarly evidence against climate change but I literally have never seen a single study refuting it versus thousands of studies that find it to be real and human made.
Pissing, moaning, name-calling, half truths–NOT part of the Scientific Method. Or a civilized human being.
Earlier MC writes:
“Ever notice people who are quick to insult don’t have faith in their arguments?”
Now his posts start like so:
“STOP REPEATING THE SAME SHIT!”
😉
Here is a tip for you MC. Nobody cares about your opinions. Fairly or unfairly, most posters here think you are a goof-ball. Furthermore, nobody can debunk your opinions. But if you have interesting citations you believe support your opinions, then please list them here so we can examine them. If you just write a long winded posts of the form “I believe this, I assert that…” – well that is of no interest to us, because we’re not interesting in a psychological deconstruction of your mindset.
MC….with enough ‘might’ ‘may’ ‘could’ “predicted to” ‘expected to’….etc you get the idea
I can get anything published…and absolutely none of it refuted
There’s no one single “fact” out there……
Every prediction has enough percentage errors, that no matter what happens, it’s not wrong………big difference in being right…and not wrong
It’s designed that way on purpose
M>C> says:
March 3, 2013 at 9:45 pm
The claim was that there is scholarly evidence. This is always the dead end of this debate because it’s just not out there. I’m hesitant to say that there is NO scholarly evidence against climate change but I literally have never seen a single study refuting it versus thousands of studies that find it to be real and human made.
===============================
thread too long…..you’re missing other people’s answers to you
Latitude says:
March 3, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Since you’ve been using google..I guess it’s ok
I googled this….
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
I also got a little curious about MC’s claim that arctic proxies showed that this region had unprecedented warming for at least a millennium. He wrote:
“In the Canadian Arctic, warming over the past 150 years is unprecedented compared to the previous millennium.”
So I jumped on google scholar to see if this is true and this is the first article that came up:
“The warmest summers occurred 8–10 kyr ago and the coldest only 150 years ago. The summers over the past 100 years have been the warmest for more than 1,000 years, but are still not as warm as those of the early Holocene.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v343/n6259/abs/343630a0.html
So we had record cold 150 years ago. (But we didn’t get an ice age…) We’ve had record warmth this century, although only part of that explanation could be due to human influence anyway, yet oddly if we go back a little further, it was warmer still.
It’s curious how when you read the entire claim and not just the part MC cites, you get a somewhat different picture of the situation. 😉
Will, is this what you’re talking about?
“”“In the Canadian Arctic, warming over the past 150 years is unprecedented compared to the previous millennium””
If so, it’s 100% true…….compared to the previous 1000 years……the last 150 years warming was “unprecedented”……
From 1000 years ago until 1850…..temps were dropping like a rock….we were going into the LIA
Temps didn’t start rising again until 150 years ago. So they can say the past 150 of warming was unprecedented…..what they don’t say is there was no warming at all in that first 750 years…and that if temps had continued (what every climate scientist does “if this continues”) we would all be one solid block of ice right now…….
They are lying…they know it…..
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo5.png
Yes that’s a nice summary of the situation. When MC declares that everything he quotes is true, it’s not the quotes that we are disputing. It’s all the information before and after the quote. 😉
Always the real world is more complex than they way to they try to represent it.
Lying? Really? Why?
Lying? Really? Why?
=====
MC…if you can where they are lying by omission…..you have a problem
“Lying? Really? Why?”
I wouldn’t characterise it as lying. If someone is a communist or a libertarian or a Buddhist or has some other belief system and they believe what they believe counter to or absent of empirical confirmation, does that mean they are liars?
Since you are one of the few people on here who can actually be civil, here is some data from the forgotten JMC in Tokyo. They gather a lot of their own data.
Growth rates of CO2 concentrations at the three stations increase and decrease almost simultaneously, as shown in the lower panel of the following figures. Remarkably high growth rates from 1997 to 1998 and from 2002 to 2003 are related to the El Niño events of 1997/1998 and 2002/2003, respectively. The high growth rates during 2005-2006, during a La Niña event rather than an El Niño event, may be related to increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and the global high temperature, with the high hemispheric mean temperature in the Northern Hemisphere. The latest El Niño event has occurred in 2009/2010. Corresponding variations in CO2 growth rates were observed in global mean concentrations.
Two questions–what about the coming El Nino, and how do you account for Japan’s data matching that of the rest of the world’s weather stations which you all discount as faulty one way on another. How can all these weather researchers be so wrong?
for one thing…Japan is under high alert right now from air pollution coming from China…they think mostly Beijing
I would be cautious about any air measurements from Japan…..
On the second question…I dunno….Caribbean black sea urchins were all supposed to be extinct by now……Coral reefs were supposed to be reduced by 3/4 by now…..temps were supposed to be at least 1/2 degree higher by now……and today was supposed to be cloudy for us/sun’s out, clear as a bell…..Fen-Phen was supposed to work…..and anti-depressants were supposed to stop suicides
Bottom line…as long as someone’s career is researching something…the longer you keep that research going, the longer you have a career
might, maybe, may, predicted, coulda, woulda, shoulda…..
There is no point discussing science with an illiterate. The scientific method means nothing to these sheep.
Sure thing, Mr Climate Expert! Sorry for breathing some of your air…
When will you discuss the science knucklehead. Do you even know what an interglacial is?
Will Nitschke says:
March 3, 2013 at 9:52 pm
Earlier MC writes:
“Ever notice people who are quick to insult don’t have faith in their arguments?”
Now his posts start like so:
“STOP REPEATING THE SAME SHIT!”
Sorry Will–I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. I was quoting one of your own–mr tommysunsnshiner. He rantd that at me and I was giving it back to him.
I try to put sources will all my posts. None are my own opinions. I am here asking why ALL climate scientists say one thing and this blog says another. Just curious as a human on the planet.
Here’s a link to the JMA in Tokyo. They have an interesting site. I ask all day why no one on this blog takes their data seriously. Can you?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/ghg/kanshi/ghgp/co2_e.html
Here is a tip for you MC. Nobody cares about your opinions. Fairly or unfairly, most posters here think you are a goof-ball. Furthermore, nobody can debunk your opinions. But if you have interesting citations you believe support your opinions, then please list them here so we can examine them. If you just write a long winded posts of the form “I believe this, I assert that…” – well that is of no interest to us, because we’re not interesting in a psychological deconstruction of your mindset.
You say a lot yet you haven’t really proved us wrong. I bet avoiding sun is healthy for you… Avoiding saturated fat and cholesterol is healthy for you… right?
Maybe you can tell me what is wrong with the weather data from Tokyo. No one else will.
Below zero emissions Scenario C
We already explained all of these yet you don’t seem to accept these facts. You just accuse us of something that has nothing to do with weather or climate. You keep saying a lot and dancing around it rather than explain why data showed otherwise. I’ve seen that over sun scare and saturated fat/cholestrol scare (both turned out to be wrong) for a long time. You’re using same tactic to try and show us we’re wrong over climate change without providing us anything. Just all talk, no proof.
I am here asking why ALL climate scientists say one thing and this blog says another
=====
I keep posting this link….are you ever going to look at it….I haven’t looked but thought you might
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Sorry–this is a smelly, oily source. You should have a look.
Using a screen-scraping process to analyze the data on the “900+” list, the folks over at Carbon Brief dug up some pretty incriminating information. Turns out nine of the ten most cited authors on the list (representing 186 of the 938 papers) have links to ExonMobil-funded organizations. The tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors. Anyone familiar with these kinds of lists (“More than 500 scientists dispute global warming” or “more Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”) knows that if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. Many familiar climate skeptic names appear over and over again.
Dr. Sherwood B Idso is the most cited author on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the papers. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a think tank funded by ExxonMobil and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
The second most cited is Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a well-known climate sceptic who admits that around 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry.
When you really crunch the numbers, all you really find is a small echochamber of the same individuals who pop up on every denier list and petition around. James W. Prall at the University of Toronto has put together a fantastic analysis of the names that appear on these lists, and shows how most of them share funding ties to the oil industry.
http://www.desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition
This is the part where MC comes here to “defend” science but then commences to trash all scientists who disagrees with his belief system. Clearly, if you don’t believe what MC believes, then you are one of those nasty “denier” scientists and/or funded by a big oil conspiracy. Or both. (Those are the most evil ones of all.) Plus… none of these authors believe that smoking causes cancer or believe in evolutionary theory, or that the Earth is round.
It really gets as dumb as this… eventually. On the other hand, what else can they do? They cannot admit that any of these peer reviewed papers actually exist.
I commented on a post in which you wrote a long winded opinion piece with no citations in it.
“I try to put sources will all my posts.”
Obviously you didn’t try very hard.
“Lying? Really? Why?”
I wouldn’t characterise it as lying. If someone is a communist or a libertarian or a Buddhist or has some other belief system and they believe what they believe counter to or absent of empirical confirmation, does that mean they are liars?
Yes, you said they were lying. That’s not disagreeing with them, you said they were lying:
noun
1. the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness: From boyhood, he has never been good at lying. Synonyms: falsehood, falsity, mendacity, prevarication. Antonyms: truth, veracity.
adjective
2.telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful; deceitful; false: a lying report. Synonyms: deceptive, misleading, mendacious, fallacious; sham, counterfeit. Antonyms: true, candid, actual, correct, accurate, trustworthy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lying
I asked you why you think they would be lying.
I also asked you why the Japan data is no good…18 times now.
I think lying involves a direct conscious act. If you believe that the The Buddha existed, you might fake evidence, or neglect to include counter evidence, or play other games. Strictly speaking you might characterise that as lying. But if you genuinely believe what you believe, from your point of view, you’re just helping the argument along, so to speak. If you distort information, so what? You know what you believe is true anyway, so it isn’t lying to you. You’re just getting to the truth through indirect means. 😉
m’c’ appears to me to be part of the “Rapid Response Team” for Climate.org
“Not a scientist, just interested” – yep. And I believe in Santa.
JMA shows CO2 rising – so what? I don’t know anyone who denies CO2 is rising. It’s easy to prove and verify. But the link to CAGW has broken…oh dear, how sad, never mind.
1. Global Temperatures have stayed flat for 17 years according to IPCC head Pachauri.
Global Temperatures are below Jim Hansen’s Scenario C, guess his model is wrong.
2. Arctic Ice extent at 7 year high! Antarctica at record levels. Oh dear, strike two.
3. Sea Levels are not catastrophically rising as demonstrated by numerous tide monitoring services. In many places sea level increase is zero, and in Alaska/Scandinavia it is falling. Strike three. Oh dear. and now the chicken little’s and sock puppets go into over drive. That’s all from me.
This is the part where MC comes here to “defend” science but then commences to trash all scientists who disagrees with his belief system. Clearly, if you don’t believe what MC believes, then you are one of those nasty “denier” scientists and/or funded by a big oil conspiracy. Or both. (Those are the most evil ones of all.) Plus… none of these authors believe that smoking causes cancer or believe in evolutionary theory, or that the Earth is round.
So you believe scientists working for Chevron, Exxon, Koch Brothers, Scaife, etc. are 100% credible? They have no hidden agenda? Credibility intact?
Strawman argument. Off topic.
Global Temperature is below Scenario C. Why?
Strictly speaking the type of argument you’ve presented is a logical fallacy called an Ad hominem. You’re trying to attack some attribute of an individual not related to his claim or argument. I.e., would you believe a scientist who beats your wife?
It’s like me pointing out that James Hansen receives funding from green activist groups, is heavily promoted by alternate energy companies with vested economic interests, and who has been arrested multiple times for his activism.
Does this invalidate Hansen’s scientific work on that basis? I think you would not. So it seems what’s good for the goose isn’t so good for the gander?
The other point is that all those papers were peer reviewed. Typically three independent scientists review that work. If you’re going to assert that all those papers were funded by a big oil conspiracy you now have to argue that the peer reviewers were in on it too. The peer reviewers were appointed by the journal editorial team. That means the journals were part of the conspiracy and so on…
It seems your conspiracy starts to rapidly spiral out of control. Before you know it, everyone is in on the conspiracy except you and the guys who write the desmong blog. 😉
This has been a fun day……dark, cold, damp, and socked in cloudy here
Thanks everyone!
Steve, thanks for letting us hang on your blog!
Maybe you can tell me what is wrong with the weather data from Tokyo. No one else will.
stevengoddard says:
March 3, 2013 at 10:59 pm
Below zero emissions Scenario C
Thanks for someone finally answering. So all the world weather data is wrong because of this forecast 25 years ago. Is this the case? I must say I have looked all over the net, and no one else makes much of it. Here’s
Finally, we update the Hansen et al (1988) comparisons. Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2ºC for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3ºC) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not exactly the same as the different scenarios used. We noted in 2007, that Scenario B was running a little high compared with the forcings growth (by about 10%) using estimated forcings up to 2003 (Scenario A was significantly higher, and Scenario C was lower).
The trends for the period 1984 to 2011 (the 1984 date chosen because that is when these projections started), scenario B has a trend of 0.28+/-0.05ºC/dec (95% uncertainties, no correction for auto-correlation). For the GISTEMP and HadCRUT3, the trends are 0.18+/-0.05 and 0.17+/-0.04ºC/dec. For reference, the trends in the AR4 models for the same period have a range 0.21+/-0.16 ºC/dec (95%).
As we stated before, the Hansen et al ‘B’ projection is running warm compared to the real world (exactly how much warmer is unclear). As discussed in Hargreaves (2010), while this simulation was not perfect, it has shown skill in that it has out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988 (the most obvious being a forecast of no-change). However, the use of this comparison to refine estimates of climate sensitivity should be done cautiously, as the result is strongly dependent on the magnitude of the assumed forcing, which is itself uncertain. Recently there have been some updates to those forcings, and so my previous attempts need to be re-examined in the light of that data and the uncertainties (particular in the aerosol component). However, this is a complicated issue, and requires more space than I really have here to discuss, so look for this in an upcoming post.
Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
First reference to the “Rapid Response Team” Clubhouse at Real Climate.Org
Last question for m’c’ –
How come real climate.org censors opposing views on its comment pages? Steve doesn’t. He let you go for a whole day.
Is it because they are afraid to be challenged? Can be the only answer.
That’s it for me…..I’m wasting time with a sock puppet.
Ciao. Thanks Steve – I agree with Latitude, it was entertaining.
“The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf
The only part of the planet where models have not been “falsified” is the Arctic.
“Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues.”.
And that’s it (barely). The case for catastrophic man made global warming is dead.
Keep on regurgitating whatever garbage you need to make yourself fee better.
Its been warming on and off for 300 years. Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow and why is this slow warming suddenly so bad?
“95% uncertainties, no correction for auto-correlation” followed by “exactly how much warmer is unclear” and ” the result is strongly dependent on the magnitude of the assumed forcing, which is itself uncertain”
Do you have any idea what he’s saying here? Lets start with the 95% uncertainty. He’s saying the model has an R^2 value of 0.05. The model is not controlled for multicollinearity. Translation: his estimators are screwed. He made no case for the rejection of the null hypothesis (that the model does no better than averaging the mean of the data). In other words, “yea my model is really bad, so bad in fact that it’s doing a good job of estimating total noise but I think it might not be all that bad. I’ll let you know later.”
I won’t go into the rest as it is self explaining.
Strictly speaking the type of argument you’ve presented is a logical fallacy called an Ad hominem. You’re trying to attack some attribute of an individual not related to his claim or argument. I.e., would you believe a scientist who beats your wife?
Does working for Exxon and the Koch Brothers undermine their credibility? All you here are fixated on Hansen–there are thousands of other Cimate Scientists who get no money from special interests. What research from any Exxon Koch site has ever deviated from the No Change party line? I have never seen any. Just like the days of Big Tobacco, it does your reputation no good to work for people with a set agenda.
Aren’t you the rhetorical genius. Why dont’t you do a little introspection? Perhaps your inability to address facts, moving the goal posts and straw man arguments might have something to do with the adhom statements?,
This whole issue is about where the money comes from. I take it you feel money drives the science, right? Soooooo, where do Hansen, Jones, Mann, Briffa, Trenberth, Schmidt, and the rest of the “team” get their money from (hint: the same fountain – can you name it?). But then again, this whole argument has nothing to do with the actual merits of the science does it?
Is a complete contradiction of:
Latitude already answered this question but I don’t think you grasped it.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/march-madness-for-the-team/#comment-198604
Contrary to popular belief, CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere. It’s actually rather clumpy and can exist in much higher concentrations (than global average) thousands of miles from its source. Japan is staring down China’s CO2 barrels and getting it with both barrels. If you’re going to hang your hat on Tokyo’s measurements you need to account for how much is the global average and how much is blasted from China. We get that CO2 is increasing. Nobody here says otherwise.
But lets forget the ratio of Japan’s measurements. It’s immaterial to the crux of the debate: What’s the correlation between CO2 and temperature and what’s the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2?
Go back and read Will’s well reasoned comment and try to understand our position better:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/march-madness-for-the-team/#comment-198546
You have been fed a stereotype of what climate change skeptics are supposed to be – haters of science, flat earthers, moon walk unbelievers, oblivious to the temperature record, etc… In reality almost no skeptic believes such nonsense. Many of us are highly educated, scientists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, and other technical disciplines. We’re nothing like your stereotype. You would do well to not try to feed us from your bag of corn for the pigeons. Understand our position then springboard from there.
To M>C>
You said above that considering the error bars, the actual temperature is within the error bars of the Scenario B prediction. If I were at James Hansen’s 1988 congressional testimony I could have said shoot!… I don’t think anything is going to happen to the world temperature and if I put the same large error bars on that prediction the actual worlds temperature would still be within my error bars (remember error bars are + and -). That might be considered the NULL hypothesis and it indicates that Hansen’s prediction was not very good.
@M>C>
Which of the following are Climate Scientists?
Al Gore: BA in Government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
Michael Mann: Bachelors in Physics and Applied Math, MS in Physics, PhD in Geology and Geophysics http://ploneprod.met.psu.edu/people/mem45
James Hansen: BA in Physics and Mathematics, MS in Astronomy, PhD in Physics http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
Kevin Trenberth: ScD in Metereology http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/kevin-trenberth-15259/profile_bio
Gavin Schmidt: BA Mathematics, PhD Mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_A._Schmidt
Phil Jones: BA, MSc, PhD all in Environmental Science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
Not a one of these guys has a degree in Climate Science.
Except for Big Al all those guys qualify.
Ok maybe not Schmidt. Doesn’t appear to have any scientific training but it’s not hard to pick up hypothesis testing, etc.
Know what amazes me. Had this discussion/debate with M/C had happened on SkS or RC, most, if not all the comments/replies would have been moderated, snipped or deleted completely.
Spot on Snafu. They are pussies on the “approved” sites. Can’t let the high priests of the zealots seen to be challenged.
293 comments! Sorry, I do not have the time to read them all. But that amount of comments, and the trolls I see on here are strong indications that the topic of this article is dead on accurate!
M>C>
You are James Lawrence Powell and I claim my $5.