Global warming discussion IV

[Reality Check]

Ball has a history of funding by petrochemical companies and associations with the Heartland Institute. The real hint that he is a crank is

There is a reference for Dr. Tim Ball's denial of the greenhouse effect which is CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period! at his blog from 2012. This contains some rather sounding statements.

• We have Climategate paranoia.
  By 2012, all of the investigations into the leaked emails had cleared the scientists of scientific misconduct. The biggest criticism was that the CRU was reluctant to release computer files in their responses to FOI requests.
• Ball states he is a climatologist and then asserts an "effective omission of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" based on a 2001 pamphlet circulated by Environment Canada !
  This "climatologist" is ignorant of the fact that water vapor is considered in climate models. And that pamphlets are short and miss out facts.
• Ball makes a little mistake of labeling computer model predictions, IPCC predictions.
  Computer model predictions are predictions from climate scientists, not the IPCC.
• Ball calls the remark "He said it was foolish to say it [CO2] was not a greenhouse gas. The best approach is to say the human contribution was insignificant." at a conference a political comment.
  This is ignorant for a "climatologist". The physics is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not politics to state a physical fact. A physical but invalid assertion is that the human contribution to CO2 is insignificant. It is significant enough that removing it from computer models leaves them unable to match existing data.
• Ball accuses climate scientists of basically faking the results from climate models by rigging them so that increases in CO2 increase temperatures.
  It is basic physics (the greenhouse effect that climatologists learn about) that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures given that all other drivers remain constant. The complexity of feedbacks between the drivers is a reason why computer models are needed.

 

[Haig]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

A couple of graphs beat all RC's rants

 

[Trakar]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

A couple of graphs beat all RC's rants

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823655e1d41a2a27e.png[/qimg]

Interesting graph. Notice that the tail of it's "modern era" ends 95 years ago?
How much do you think Greenland has warmed on average over the last century? I wonder what that graph would look like if we added the last century of Greenland warming to it?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_3823655e1d4bfc6ef5.png[/qimg]

Similar issue with this graph, exactly where on the planet is the average annual temperature a negative 32º C? And what does the last 200 years of that graph look like, its impossible to see at this resolution.

 

[Haig]

Interesting graph. Notice that the tail of it's "modern era" ends 95 years ago?
How much do you think Greenland has warmed on average over the last century? I wonder what that graph would look like if we added the last century of Greenland warming to it?

Similar issue with this graph, exactly where on the planet is the average annual temperature a negative 32º C? And what does the last 200 years of that graph look like, its impossible to see at this resolution.

Well Trakar, as for those graphs ...

It's "over a climatically significant timeframe," is a proper scientific qualification many a faux skeptic AGW alarmist "conveniently" omits FTFY

Top 10 Global Warming Lies

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #194

 

[Megalodon]

So your contention is that Greenland is an accurate proxy for global temperatures? I can't wait for the evidence of that one...

 

[Haig]

So your contention is that Greenland is an accurate proxy for global temperatures? I can't wait for the evidence of that one...

A strong case can be made that Greenland was much warmer than it is now, is that disputed? Or do you prefer the evidence for accurate proxy for global temperatures reconstructions has been derived from tree-ring records?

An extended Arctic proxy temperature database for the past 2,000 years

Changing Greenland

The Vikings settled Greenland during a period of exceptional warmth, the same warm period that saw expanded agriculture and the construction of great cathedrals in Europe. By 1300, though, Greenland became much colder, and living there became ever more challenging.

Vikings grew barley in Greenland

Little Ice Age stopped corn cultivation
The Greenland climate was a bit warmer than it is today, and the southernmost tip of the great island was luscious and green and no doubt tempted Eric the Red and his followers. This encouraged them to cultivate some of the seed corn they brought with them from Iceland.

The Vikings also tried to grow other agricultural crops. Their attempts to grow these crops and barley did not last long, however, as the climate cooled over the next couple of centuries until the Little Ice Age started in the 13th century.

Vikings During The Medieval Warm Period

The warm climate during the MWP allowed this great migration to flourish. Drift ice posed the greatest hazard to sailors but reports of drift ice in old records do not appear until the thirteenth century (Bryson, 1977.)

So there is little doubt the settlements in Greenland were discouraged by the LIA. Now was the LIA a global event?

YES it was

Little Ice Age was global

Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming

 

[Haig]

Well Megalodon, while you're pondering the above ...

There is more ... that even an 8 year old should be able to understand, care to try?

The Epistemology of Explaining Climate Forecasting so an 8 Year Old Can Understand it

Ava – you ask.- What about the future.?
Well the simplest and most likely guess for starters is that the 1000 year cycle from 2003 – 3003 will have a temperature curve whose general shape is similar to the cycle from 1000 – 2003. see Fig 2 .
If you look at that Figure again you can see that the Northern Hemisphere average temperature cooled by a bit under 2 degrees from 1000 to about 1635 so that we might expect a similar cooling from 2003 to 2638 – of course with various ups and downs along the way .
The warm peak at about 1000 was a good time for people when the Vikings were able to live in Greenland. Harvests were good and people in Europe had time and money to spare to start building cathedrals The cold period around 1635 – to 1700 is called the Maunder Minimum when the Sun was so quiet that the Sun spots disappeared. Most people living before about 1850 grew their own food. Before then, if just a few extra- cold years followed one after the other, millions of people starved to death because their harvests failed.
Man made CO2 had no effect on these temperature changes. In fact President Obama is very wrong to call CO2 a pollutant. It is the absolutely essential plant food. Without it life as we know it could not exist. Plants grow better as CO2 increases. About 25% of the increase in food production in the 20th century was due simply to the increase in CO2 in those years – a great benefit to mankind.
Ava asks – the blue line is almost flat. – When will we know for sure that we are on the down slope of the thousand year cycle and heading towards another Little Ice Age.
Grandpa says- I’m glad to see that you have developed an early interest in Epistemology.

 

[Megalodon]

So, is that a no on the evidence that Greenland temperature is an appropriated proxy for global temperatures? Seems like it...

 

[Megalodon]

Well Megalodon, while you're pondering the above ...

There is more ... that even an 8 year old should be able to understand, care to try?

The Epistemology of Explaining Climate Forecasting so an 8 Year Old Can Understand it

I was trying to pinpoint at what level your argument was, now it seems clear...

 

[Haig]

So, is that a no on the evidence that Greenland temperature is an appropriated proxy for global temperatures? Seems like it...

I was trying to pinpoint at what level your argument was, now it seems clear...

You wish! read it again ... come up with the wrong answer again and you go to the bottom of the class ... now try and give a sensible answer this time

 

[Belz...]

If we look at the temperature over the last 10 and 25 thousand years we can get a much better "climatically significant time frame" and it shows 20th century warming to be nothing special and the natural state is an ICE AGE.

Hell, if we look back 4.5 billion years we find that it was actually MOLTEN! Ergo, no warming. QED.

 

[Belz...]

The climate has ALWAYS been changing and it's a natural cycle and we aren't causing it nor can we control it.

Ok, let's break this down.

The climate has ALWAYS been changing

And? That doesn't mean anything. My bank account also has ALWAYS been changing (mostly rising) but it doesn't mean that my actions can't empty it.

we aren't causing it

You'd like to think that this is your conclusion but it is quite clearly your premise.

nor can we control it.

Oh, really? So you are saying that no amount of carbon, a greenhouse gas, emitted by us could ever have an impact on the climate?

 

[Belz...]

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Here are a few: the trends of the past say nothing about the present. Yes, climate has been changing through time, even before we had the ability to seriously affect it. That neither proves nor disproves said ability to affect it. You bringing up prehistoric trends is thus completely irrelevant.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: You are parroting the ignorance and/or lies of bloggers about past climate

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Two uncited images are not worth the paper they are not written on, Haig. We have you unthinkingly repeating ignorance and lies from WUWT so parroting ignorance and/or lies from other bloggers is not a surprise.
The first graph is Greenland temperatures from ice cores. That is local, historical data that has little to do with global, current warming !
The second graph is more irrelevant historical data.

1 September 2015 Haig: You are parroting the ignorance and/or lies of some random bloggers about historical climate again?
The last time was yesterday If we look at the temperature over the last 10 and 25 thousand years ...
And as Trakar pointed out: Again, not even enough of a grasp of the subject matter to be a good lie, you are simple fundamentally and functionally wrong.

The science says that global warming is not part of a natural cycle: It's a natural cycle

A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: 11 links to WUWT lies that you cannot tell when they are lying to you

Top 10 Global Warming Lies

Now we are getting into links to biased political web sites: - the Heartland Institute. This is an insane list of random news articles that the "reporter" thinks have been written by co-called "global warming alarmists".
The first point is just stupid. That “Bats Drop from the Sky – In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.” (not attributed to anyone :eek) is an observation. That wind turbines also kill bats has nothing to do with the observation that an Australian heat wave killed bats.
I will mention one lie from James B. Taylor - the science is:
More evidence that global warming is intensifying extreme weather

With the usual unthinkingly repeating ignorance and lies from WUWT

1. 11th May 2015 Haig: WUWT blog lies by cherry picking the source and start date about "No global warming for 18 years and 3 months" as easily seen by anyone who looks at the data.
2. 7th August 2015 Haig: WUWT blog lies about "No global warming for 18 years and 7 months"
3. 14 August 2015 Haig: WUWT blog lies about the BEST data showing global warming (it does!)
4. 25 August 2015 Haig: Linking to the many invalid rants on WUWT about climate models.
5. 26 August 2015 Haig: WUWT and HockeySchtick lies about a "18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming".
6. 26 August 2015 Haig: WUWT and HockeySchtick are ignorant about basic science.
7. 27 August 2015 Haig: Bob Tisdale is an ignorant climate change denier, not a climate researcher.
8. 28 August 2015 Haig: "Ari.H"'s ignorance, lies and political rants in a blog post on WUWT.
9. 31 August 2015 Haig: Andy May lies in his blog entry on WUWT ("The hockey stick was never validated...") or at least repeats a Mark Steyn lie.
10. 31 August 2015 Haig: Sheldon Walker looks at trends in weather in his WUWT blog entry! A small bit of ignorance.
11. 31 August 2015 Haig: The greenhouse effect denier Tim Ball cites the ignorant Tisdale and displays some ignorance in a WUWT blog entry.

That is 11 links to WUWT lies or ignorance from you Haig.
There is no point in closely looking at any more of your WUWT links since you have displayed no ability to understand when they are lying to you, Haig. So from now on just a quick scan to confirm that it is WUWT lies or ignorance.

 

[Reality Check]

The Epistemology of Explaining Climate Forecasting so an 8 Year Old Can Understand it

Is this the 12th set of lies and/or ignorance that you have cited from WUWT, Haig? Yes - a quick read shows this as a Guest essay by Dr. Norman Page with the lie that global warming is a natural cycle.

More confirmation that there is no point in looking closely at any other of your WUWT links since you have displayed no ability to understand when they are lying to you (now 12 links to WUWT lies or ignorance), Haig.

1 September 2015 Haig: You link to a Dr. Norman Page lying about natural cycles on WUWT with a "1000 year temperature cycle".

 

[Megalodon]

You wish! read it again ... come up with the wrong answer again and you go to the bottom of the class ... now try and give a sensible answer this time

I asked the question: Do you think Greenland is a good proxy for global temperatures and, if yes, where is the evidence.

You told me that Greenland was warmer in the past (duh) and that your arguments are at the level of an eight year old (we had noticed).

So, until you answer a simple yes or no, we can't advance on the explanation of how wrong you are.

 

[CapelDodger]

A case could be made in the mid-'80's that Greenland around 1000CE was as warm, but thirty years of warming have put paid to that. In recent years it has rained on Greenland in winter: this is not normal, and was never remarked on in the past.

There were two Norse settlements, both in the south-west on the Labrador Sea, warmed by an arm of the Gulf Stream. Which is to say, they inhabited the warmest part of Greenland only. The main draw of the place was walrus ivory, which as we all know became a sought-after product when the Moors cut off the African ivory trade in the 8thCE. When the Portuguese re-opened the trade in the 15thCE Greenland was abandoned. At the same time Basque fishermen were plying the Labrador Sea, on the quiet, to enormous profit.

Not everything's down to climate change. Everything is down to economics, though.

 

[The Atheist]

Everything is down to economics, though.

Christ, I wish a lot more people realised that important fact.

Mammon is the One True God.

 

[Reality Check]

Talking of the economics of climate change: Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars

Citi Global Perspectives & Solutions (GPS), a division within Citibank (America’s third-largest bank), recently published a report looking at the economic costs and benefits of a low-carbon future. The report considered two scenarios: “Inaction,” which involves continuing on a business-as-usual path, and Action scenario which involves transitioning to a low-carbon energy mix.

One of the most interesting findings in the report is that the investment costs for the two scenarios are almost identical. In fact, because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario.
...
The following figure from the Citi report breaks down the investment costs in the Action ($190.2 trillion) and Inaction ($192 trillion) scenarios.