The question was not concerning satellite temperature measurements, so can it be assumed your assertion is ground surface temperature measurements are questionable?
I'm not interested in one piece of evidence, I'm interested in fifty or sixty. I presented only the four most glaring ones. I notice you didn't answer my question.
I don't find ice shelf collapsing catastrophic, why do you?
This is the basic way skeptoids proceed.
1. It didn't happen.
2. It happened but it's not important.
You seem to have skipped a step.
So, if it happened, does that mean the Antarctic is getting warmer, or colder? This is how you deal with skeptoids, children: one step at a time. Either they go along, or you stop talking to them.
Actually the prediction is thirty years sooner.
So, basically what you're saying is because I used the median projections instead of the most pessimistic ones, I'm lying? Or perhaps you think it's a sign I'm being an alarmist.
I'll let you think about that a little while. I'm sure most people won't have to think about it for long.
I wasn't aware untested published predictions is considered science. Is that the “new” scientific method?
And I wasn't aware that denying or ignoring data that one doesn't like was considered science; nor that quoting out of context was considered either polite or logically rigorous. Silly me.
Why would the models need “correcting” if they are reliable?
Because your buddies over at Exxon have managed to stir up enough "doubt" that the scientists are being very cautious about what predictions they make; apparently so cautious that they overcompensated. Nice, manufacture a controversy and then blame the scientists for it. Good going.
That's the way to get good science. Luckily it looks like some scientists just ignored it and kept on gathering data.
Thanks for pointing out that most egregious grammatical error. I assure you it was just an oversight. Had you not pointed that out there's no telling how much confusion would have ensued.
You're welcome. It does, however, tend to indicate a certain lack of rigor in your thought processes. It's rather disappointing to argue with someone who posts questions that are obvious lead-ins to a very sophisticated piece of public relations work, who doesn't know the difference between effect and affect. One kind of gets the impression one is arguing with the stereotypical basement dweller, no?
I asked a question. Obviously your contention is the sun (sun spots are but one)
Sunspots are an indicator of total solar activity; the more energy the Sun is putting out, the more likely it is to have sunspots. Or did you miss that lecture in solar astronomy class? Actually, I'm guessing you missed the entire class. Among numerous other things.
and cosmic influences have little effect on climate, correct?
"Cosmic influences?"
Whoopsie. I thought I was talking to someone who claims to be a skeptic. "Cosmic influences" is woo. That's called "astrology." I'm sure many here have seen it before.
Considering the sun is our only source of life sustaining heat, it's a bit absurd to discount in my humble opinion.
Yeah, too bad it's putting out less energy but it's still getting warmer; you don't have that crutch to lean on any more.
Now, you can find at RealClimate, this:
Cherry-picked "evidence" given all the weight it deserves.
Read the entire entry. To these guys, everything is “spin” that disagrees with their views.
Yeah, don't read any of the technical parts; they're "spin." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
That was a response to Svensmark's theoretical work, including the usual empty rhetoric coming from RC. Now with the SKY experiment published in early 2007 to verify their (Svensmark et al) hypothesis, something CO2 AGW proponents have yet to demonstrate experimentally, RC is silent.
Heh, Svensmark managed to actually show something that refutes the RC analysis? Oh, right, he just showed more of the same stuff and you are
claiming it refutes the RC analysis. Of course, we wouldn't want to actually
read the RC analysis and
observe that it doesn't, right? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
As noted above, sunspots are not the only solar mechanisms affecting climate.
ROFFLMFAO! "...sunspots are not the only solar mechanisms affecting climate." Please show how sunspots affect the climate. More "cosmic influences," perhaps?
Also, from data I have been able to gather,
from sites populated by basement dwellers such as yourself
“average” (a misnomer) global temperatures have not risen since 1998, but actually are trending downward.
Unbelievable.
Fifty pieces of hard evidence- not models, data- all interlock and show exactly the same thing, but "from data [you] have been able to gather," they're all wrong.
Pull the other one.
Seeing how this is a thread about global warming, I assumed you would know climate sensitivity is referred to as the Greek symbol “lambda”.
Oh, really? Gee, that would imply I am a climatologist. Bzzzzzzt.
Climate sensitivity is perhaps at the core of the entire GW debate. Hansen, Annan, Stern, IPCC....all use their own value for lambda. Take your pick. If moderate climate change is not to your liking in the model, no problem. Just increase climate sensitivity up and viola!, instant doomsday, in 100 years of course. So, I ask again. What is the true value for lambda?
Like the variables in all scientific calculations, it is determined empirically. It also changes over time, which is also not uncommon, and from place to place on the Earth. Funny, temperature does that too. Gee, do you suppose that maybe you might need to use a
different value for
different empirically determined conditions? No, there has to be just ONE value, good for all times and places, and if teh evul AGW cunspirisy denies it, tehy are LYNIG!!!11!!one!
GCM is Global Circulation Model. How much evidence do you require?
None, just a definition instead of hyperbole.
Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise?
Yes, a great deal. Particularly considering that not a single one of the pieces you linked to can be confirmed as being written by an actual climatologist (the third doesn't exist as far as I can tell), the first doesn't state that GCMs are wrong, merely that they are only part of the picture, and the second, although it
mentions and
quotes a climatologist, isn't about GW predictions over decades but climate predictions year-to-year, and makes the tired old claim that year-to-year climate prediction accuracy of 50% is proof that "teh sciensetis don't knwo what their talking abuot."
Tell you what: present some actual evidence, and then we'll talk about mine; you made the implicit assertion they aren't accurate, you support it.
The climate has always changed. There will always be winners in some parts and losers in others. Why is this considered unusual?
Honestly,
this instead of evidence? What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter?
1. Ah, that is the conundrum. Prove it.
I did. Not my problem if you weren't watching.
2. It is? 2006 was cooler than 1998. In fact, every year after 1998 (the last El Nino) has been cooler. Did you notice?
You mean, did I notice the graphs made from cherry-picked data that popped up all over the 'Net just about the time the producers of the TV program that spawned them were getting their heads handed to them by the authorities who license them to use the public airwaves in Britain? Yeah, I saw those graphs, compared them with the data, and dismissed them. You seem to have missed the actual data, and be relying on the graphs, on the other hand. Skeptoid is how I refer to that.
What happened to all the hurricanes that were supposed to follow after Katrina?
This reads like an Exxon talking points memo.
If it warms again would you notice without AGW alarmists reminding you?
Remember, if anyone says ANYTHING about AGW that supports it, they're an ALARMIST. Nice. I hear that peanut butter catching on your epiglottis a bit. Sure you don't need a little more of it?
First-year physics students can tell us it's going to get hotter? Really? And there's something we can do about it? Freeman Dyson is not a first-year physics student, but has some interesting comments on this subject:
youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU
And yet another non-climatologist is trotted out. Listen, skepticism is about examining the actual data; skeptoids never quite seem to get that. It is furthermore Dyson's position that he is a "heretic;" that is, he always likes to challenge the accepted wisdom. In this capacity, he provides a valuable counterpoint. However, he doesn't base this particular opinion on any data he can point to; and predictably, skeptoids latch onto his statements and blow them out of proportion. The beginning of his quote in an email interview
here: "
Climate change is a real problem, partly caused by human activities, but its importance has been grossly exaggerated.
"It is far less important than other social problems such as poverty, infectious diseases, deforestation, extinction of species on land and in the sea, not to mention war, nuclear weapons and biological weapons."
Emphasis mine. Nice little cherry-picking job. I suspect Dr. Dyson might have a thing or two to say to you about taking his words out of context, and offering them as proof that AGW isn't real or isn't happening. It would seem he just acknowledged that it
is real and it
is happening and it
is at least partially our fault. Not bad, considering it doesn't appear he's taken the time to look over the instrumental evidence.
Has anyone here lived through the Dust Bowl era in the 1930's? What caused that?
My position is the science is not settled.
Your position is in the basement of mommy's house, whining on the 'Net about things that scare you so that you can pretend they don't exist.
"The science is not settled" != "nobody understands anything about climatology." Nor "we don't know enough to say it's getting warmer, and likely to continue," nor even "we don't know enough to say it's our fault," nor any of the other Exxon talking points you have spewed here.
Next.
