Global warming

[a_unique_person]

I gave you your opportunity to pick three annoying references. You declined, so now you get annoyed. Get over it. AGW Believers must be scripted that the cooling period after 1940 was due to pollution for two reasons. otherwise the theory of AGW caused by CO2 has a very inconvenient truth.

Here are the reasons the Mann-Hansen-Gore team scripted response on the 1940-1970 cool period is that it is caused by pollution

• we fixed that pollution, fixed that cooling. Look! We can fix stuff.
• obviously now we can fix CO2, fix that dangerous accelerated temperature rise

Your citing the presence of major pollution today doesn't help a theory that we fixed major global cooling for a thirty year period by eliminating pollution.

No, Mann-Hansen-Gore had nothing to do with the research into particle pollution that causes cooling. It's a real phenomenon, I have experienced an extreme example myself. It's also the reason why Australia's average rainfall is constant, because it is the reason there is more rainfall in the NorthWest of Australia.

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/70s-cooling-again-but-why.html

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
AGW Believers must be scripted that the cooling period after 1940 was due to pollution for two reasons. otherwise the theory of AGW caused by CO2 has a very inconvenient truth.

Here are the reasons the Mann-Hansen-Gore team scripted response on the 1940-1970 cool period is that it is caused by pollution

• we fixed that pollution, fixed that cooling. Look! We can fix stuff.
• obviously now we can fix CO2, fix that dangerous accelerated temperature rise

Your citing the presence of major pollution today doesn't help a theory that we fixed major global cooling for a thirty year period by eliminating pollution.
​

No, Mann-Hansen-Gore had nothing to do with the research into particle pollution that causes cooling. It's a real phenomenon, I have experienced an extreme example myself. It's also the reason why Australia's average rainfall is constant, because it is the reason there is more rainfall in the NorthWest of Australia.

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/70s-cooling-again-but-why.html

Mann-Hansen-Gore stretched the fact that particle pollution causes cooling out until it was said to cause a 30 year period of global cooling that overwhelmed the global warming that was happening at the same time.

Then they had an excuse why 1940-1970 did not fit their model.

Just like they tried to do away with

• the Little Ice Age
• the Medieval Warming Period
• and just like their wish to show 1998 as warmer than the 1930s.

All relating to showing "Unprecedented Man Made Global Warming" since the 1980s. Well, yes it was unprecedented, and yes it was man made. By them.

Here is the actual temperature data. The smooth line is a curve fit with pretty good correlation. The prediction is that temperatures will cool off in the coming decade.

No reason for alarm.
No obvious heavy CO2 warming component overlaid on the line, is there?

 

[David Rodale]

I think you misunderstand what McIntyre was saying. He was saying Hansen can't change the measurement system he is using. As far as I can tell, hansen moved from a less accurate system to one that is more accurate. McIntyre was wrong in either case.

Please note there is a difference between accuracy and precision. What McIntyre is saying is science is just as accountable as any business when submitting data for public consumption. The law requires NASA/NOAA et al to abide by such standards of accountability. Hansen has been playing games and breaking the law. That may not sit well with you, but is the truth.

Would you please correct the incorrect information on your webpage. This request is made pursuant to the Data Quality Act.
Yours truly,
Stephen McIntyre

Let's see. McIntyre continually trawls through Hansen's data, looking for errors. He's a hero. Hansens moves to a more accurate data set, he's a fraud. He can't win, because if he stayed with the old one, he'd be criticised for that too.

Meanwhile, you ignore the validation of Hansen's code by McIntyre. As did McIntyre. It was supposed to reveal all kinds of incompetence, but it didn't. I can't imagine the pressure Hansen is put under by this remorseless and merciless circling of the sharks, who only have the intention of eating him alive.

The troposphere is warming. At that rate, it's on track for the IPCC predictions. The first part is the warming of the troposphere, then the feedback mechanisms, which aren't to do with troposphere warming, take over.

Crocodile tears for Dr. Hansen.
As for the comment on troposphere warming, it sounds like you’re rewriting AGW hypothesis which says the troposphere should warm at a faster rate than the surface. Since this is not the case, that hypothesis is rejected. No Unique, if you bothered to look at the satellite data, there is no trend in the troposphere, hence the ‘new and improved’ global warming from Met O (Hadley).

You don't have to ask me, the IPCC has already worked it out. Read the report.

I asked you to read the IPCC report, apparently that's not good enough.

Ad nauseam

Which just goes to show why McIntyre is a danger to himself and others. Science is always changing.

The scientific method is what stays the same.

Do you know what full disclosure means? Reproducibility?

I keep on thinking if I ignore anything Singer says, you'll forget about him.

The cooling after the 40's was due to pollution. It's already been researched. If you want to confirm it yourself, go to Bangkok. The pollution is so bad the sun is a red orb all day. It cools the city. The pollution drifts down to the some resorts, one of which I spent a few days at. Occasionally the haze would lift, and the temperature would shoot up.

It's got nothing to do with Singer, his cycles, or his support of big tobacco and big oil. Now it's warming again. Hadley is following the climate much more closely than other climate models have been able to, and it's going to start rising again very soon. You tip a drop in the next few years, I'm backing them and it's going to rise.

More anecdotal evidence and ad hom? Shocking!

Please cite the paper quantifying the global cooling from 1940-1970 as it relates to pollution.

What is Hadley basing it’s predictions on?

You don't have to ask me, the IPCC has already worked it out. Read the report.

I asked you to read the IPCC report, apparently that's not good enough.

Ad nauseam



A minor contradiction; surely a oversight or Freudian slip? Review the satellite data and point out the current warming trend. Please clarify, what is and isn't rising/warming:

The troposphere is warming.

and it's going to start rising again very soon. You tip a drop in the next few years, I'm backing them and it's going to rise.

What is causing the current stagnation in temperature rise? Pollution? Volcanoes? What event (per Met O's 'new and improved' model) will cause it to rise again?

 

[mhaze]

Please cite the paper quantifying the global cooling from 1940-1970 as it relates to pollution.

A minor contradiction; surely a oversight or Freudian slip? Review the satellite data and point out the current warming trend. Please clarify, what is and isn't rising/warming:

What is causing the current stagnation in temperature rise? Pollution? Volcanoes? What event (per Met O's 'new and improved' model) will cause it to rise again?

In partial defense of AUP's position please look at this.

Australian Greenhouse Office.

The very things that we are disputing the certainty or even likelihood of (AGW) are denied by the government itself. The government there asserts CO2 is bad, yada yada yada. Although there are some skeptics, they are likely much rarer than here in the US - as AUP says from his perspective "they are nutters". Not agreeing with it a bit, just trying to get the context right. There is an active "Ministry of Truth" down under.

Perhaps the next subject should be how the Australian citizens get back all the money they gave to supposedly fix the "greenhouse gas emissions problem", after it is scientifically proven to not be a problem.

Shouldn't all those billions be given back?

We're headed over the top of the curve on this chart, temperatures are stabilizing. If the chart is right, then temperatures will head down.

Safekeeper, the people in Norway should get back the $466 per person that they were forced to cough up for the 2007 startup of higher utility bills that was supposedly to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions". Don't you want the money back?

Here's the climate cycle - right hand side is marked as to uncertainty.



Here's CO2 - obviously NOT DRIVING temperatures.



The US has been roundly criticized for not joining Kyoto.

Next we shall be criticized for it being our scientists at NASA and our ex Vice President who hoisted the mistaken, scientifically unproven concept of AGW based on carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[oponol]

Yes it is an unpleasant question.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8387http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc4e08067f.png

This curve fit has a pretty good correlation to

Curve fitting and correlation don't provide an explaination of cause. "Coming out of the little ice age" is a description of warming, not an explaination for why it warmed. The wave pattern given is far to short to extrapolate it's continuation, and even so even the wave pattern alone does not necessitate that underlying increasing trend.

The CO2 AGW theory only explains the "alarming accelerating trend" since 1980. But I've asked here repeatedly if someone could just show a relationship between the CO2 level and the temperature, first with 1850, then 1950, then with the last 30 years. No takers. Why?

Because as you've already said, AGW theory only expects the trend since about 1980.

Because CO2 does not have a significant relation to temperature as measured. And that's the core premise of the IPCC. They are wrong.

The IPCC doesn't claim that co2 has a significant relation to temperature across the entire 20th century. It simply didn't alter enough in the early 20th century to cause appreciable warming back then.

 

[mhaze]

Curve fitting and correlation don't provide an explaination of cause. "Coming out of the little ice age" is a description of warming, not an explaination for why it warmed. The wave pattern given is far to short to extrapolate it's continuation, and even so even the wave pattern alone does not necessitate that underlying increasing trend.

Because as you've already said, AGW theory only expects the trend since about 1980. The IPCC doesn't claim that co2 has a significant relation to temperature across the entire 20th century. It simply didn't alter enough in the early 20th century to cause appreciable warming back then.

Perhaps this will help. Here is a summary of 135 separate published studies of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere prior to Keeling's work.

Is there some period(s) of years that you can point to and show a mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature?

Beck's study goes back to the year 1800 and is the summary of 135 separate published studies and over 90,000 separate tests on atmospheric CO2 concentration with a precision of better than 3%.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm




Show some linear or logrithmic, or other relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and temperature. That is essentially what the IPCC argues should be the case.

 

[a_unique_person]

Mann-Hansen-Gore stretched the fact that particle pollution causes cooling out until it was said to cause a 30 year period of global cooling that overwhelmed the global warming that was happening at the same time.

Then they had an excuse why 1940-1970 did not fit their model.

Mann-Hansen-Gore had nothing to do with the research into particle pollution. Unless you think there is a massive conspiracy going on, in which case you are in the wrong part of the forum. I direct you towards the Truthers in aisle 6.

Just like they tried to do away with

• the Little Ice Age
• the Medieval Warming Period
• and just like their wish to show 1998 as warmer than the 1930s.

All relating to showing "Unprecedented Man Made Global Warming" since the 1980s. Well, yes it was unprecedented, and yes it was man made. By them.

Here is the actual temperature data. The smooth line is a curve fit with pretty good correlation. The prediction is that temperatures will cool off in the coming decade.

No reason for alarm.
No obvious heavy CO2 warming component overlaid on the line, is there?


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8387http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc4e08067f.png

You have it curving down, then presumably, it will curve up again. To what? At what rate is the overall trend in your graph?

 

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps this will help. Here is a summary of 135 separate published studies of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere prior to Keeling's work.

Is there some period(s) of years that you can point to and show a mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature?

Beck's study goes back to the year 1800 and is the summary of 135 separate published studies and over 90,000 separate tests on atmospheric CO2 concentration with a precision of better than 3%.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8395http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422446f05b27a581d.png

Show some linear or logrithmic, or other relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and temperature. That is essentially what the IPCC argues should be the case.

Have you got your beer goggles on? If you look at the ice core samples, leading directly onto the Mauna Loa, the curve is a perfect trend. The so called accurate measurements jump around like a yo-yo, and are clearly so error prone as to be useless. Perhaps you might like to ask Mr McIntyre to do an audit of them?

 

[a_unique_person]

In partial defense of AUP's position please look at this.

Australian Greenhouse Office.

The very things that we are disputing the certainty or even likelihood of (AGW) are denied by the government itself. The government there asserts CO2 is bad, yada yada yada. Although there are some skeptics, they are likely much rarer than here in the US - as AUP says from his perspective "they are nutters". Not agreeing with it a bit, just trying to get the context right. There is an active "Ministry of Truth" down under.

No, it's all just 'gesture politics', that is, only meant to settle the people down and let them think something is being done.

This is what they really think.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/18/1189881513935.html

THE Liberal Party has allegedly told its federal and state members to decline invitations to events starring former US vice-president Al Gore.
Since his failed presidential run in 2000, Gore has been an advocate for reducing carbon emissions and tackling climate change, reaching a wide audience through his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
Invitations to the events run by public relations heavy Max Markson were issued to Liberals from the Prime Minister down. Only one accepted, then promptly cancelled.
"There is absolutely an official boycott in place," said Markson, a noted ALP fund-raiser.
"It is a national and state boycott. We had one NSW Liberal MP (respond) and he had to ring back and apologise and say he wasn't allowed to come. In the end the only Liberal Party representative at any event will be former PM Malcolm Fraser, who is turning up in Melbourne on Friday."
Liberal state director Julian Sheezel denied the party had told candidates to stay away.
"There is no credibility in that assertion at all," he said.

 

[mhaze]

No, it's all just 'gesture politics', that is, only meant to settle the people down and let them think something is being done.

This is what they really think.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/18/1189881513935.html

That is quite interesting. So they have their "Ministry of CO2", but it's sort of a big PR scam? How is that related to Gore, that he would not really be welcomed by politicians?

 

[mhaze]

Have you got your beer goggles on? If you look at the ice core samples, leading directly onto the Mauna Loa, the curve is a perfect trend. The so called accurate measurements jump around like a yo-yo, and are clearly so error prone as to be useless. Perhaps you might like to ask Mr McIntyre to do an audit of them?

For which reason the Mauna Loa curve and ice core measurements are shown, also, on the graph.

The chemical measurements as stated, had a max error of 3%.

Cherry picking a bit there are you?

 

[David Rodale]

Have you got your beer goggles on? If you look at the ice core samples, leading directly onto the Mauna Loa, the curve is a perfect trend. The so called accurate measurements jump around like a yo-yo, and are clearly so error prone as to be useless. Perhaps you might like to ask Mr McIntyre to do an audit of them?

No Unique, there isn't a perfect curve leading onto the Mauna Loa. If you'd bother to research the many tens of thousands of CO2 measurements prior to and after Mauna Loa, you'd know the "perfect trend" is bunk. You would also know about the "missing sink".

Aside from that, viewing the chart below, notice the pattern existing from the Mauna Loa measurements? What does it say? Even a wild guess?

Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat


This may help:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt

 

[mhaze]

Have you got your beer goggles on? If you look at the ice core samples, leading directly onto the Mauna Loa, the curve is a perfect trend. The so called accurate measurements jump around like a yo-yo, and are clearly so error prone as to be useless. Perhaps you might like to ask Mr McIntyre to do an audit of them?

Here is another chart from the compilation. An excel spreadsheet is downloadable with all the data, by the way.

Interesting that warmers ignore all the studies of atmospheric CO2 concentration except the two - ice cores and Mauni Lao - that supposedly support their hypothesis of CO2 being the primary driving agent for climate.

You would think, then, warmers could show a simple correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature - using some group of years for temperature and their preferred, cherry picked CO2 data.

I'm still waiting for that.

Thought that maybe the problem was in the data set, that more data would hep. So I got these and contributed them. In the meantime, given the apparent weakness of the CO2 hypothesis, it seems reasonable for me to stay on the skeptical side.

 

[mhaze]

Here is another chart from the compilation. An excel spreadsheet is downloadable with all the data, by the way.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422446f10b288631d.png

A note about the data. Please note that the ice core data provides only one measurement (one ice core???) at the beginning, middle and end of the bell shaped curve centered around 1942.

One measurement trumps hundreds, including those done by two Nobel prize winners?

Only in the world of Gore/IPCC science.

 

[a_unique_person]

For which reason the Mauna Loa curve and ice core measurements are shown, also, on the graph.

The chemical measurements as stated, had a max error of 3%.

Cherry picking a bit there are you?

The CO2 measuring jumps all over the place, until we start measuring it at Mauna Loa. Then all of a sudden, it doesn't jump all over the place.

 

[a_unique_person]

A note about the data. Please note that the ice core data provides only one measurement (one ice core???) at the beginning, middle and end of the bell shaped curve centered around 1942.

One measurement trumps hundreds, including those done by two Nobel prize winners?

Only in the world of Gore/IPCC science.

Hundreds of seperate measurements by different people at different times using different equipment at different places under different conditions. One of the attractions of Mauna Lao is that it provides a "well mixed" consistent reading. The dove-tail from ice core to Mauna Loa shows the match up and consistency between the two.

 

[a_unique_person]

No Unique, there isn't a perfect curve leading onto the Mauna Loa. If you'd bother to research the many tens of thousands of CO2 measurements prior to and after Mauna Loa, you'd know the "perfect trend" is bunk. You would also know about the "missing sink".

Aside from that, viewing the chart below, notice the pattern existing from the Mauna Loa measurements? What does it say? Even a wild guess?

Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346f107c6ad21e.jpg

This may help:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt

This may help more.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

 

[a_unique_person]

Law Dome ice core, antarctica.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif

From Cape Grim Tasmania

http://www.dar.csiro.au/capegrim/image/cg_CO2.png

A shorter record, but it validates Mauna Loa.

 

[mhaze]

Hundreds of seperate measurements by different people at different times using different equipment at different places under different conditions. One of the attractions of Mauna Lao is that it provides a "well mixed" consistent reading. The dove-tail from ice core to Mauna Loa shows the match up and consistency between the two.

This is a perfect example of cherry picking and data dredging.

Yet with your cherry picked dredges you cannot show that simple correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Not even with my giving you your choice of a subset of the years? 1850 - present, 1950 - present, 1980 - present?

Not even with my providing additional sources - over 135 actual data sets with 90,000 results - which I am also not objecting to your cherry picking and data dredging from?

I do not know what else is humanly possible to do, to help AGW Warmers produce a solid, credible and scientific foundation for the manmade CO2 drives climate change hypothesis.

You can not say I did not try to help.

This is not good for the credibility of the AGW hypothesis that CO2 is the major driver of climate. What can be done to salvage this theory?

 

[mhaze]

A Congressional Briefing about forecasts of global warming given by Scott Armstrong on Thursday, Sept 13 is available on YouTube The briefing was based on the Green & Armstrong paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?" The global warming paper is the first of what we hope will be many forecasting audits of public policy issues to be presented on the new Special Interest Group page at http://publicpolicyforecasting.com. (17 September, 2007)

Armstrong's Congressional Briefing video and power point presentation are also available here.
and here is the full text of the paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?".

Some conclusions.

• "We have been unable to find a scientific forecast to support global warming."
• "Climate models use models to express their judgements.
• The "Seer Sucker" theory proposed 1978 applies to global warming. "No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, seers will find suckers". Tetlock (2005) found support for this theory with an evaluation of 82,000 forecasts over 20 years.