• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

hmm...

The stated effort of the assessment reports is to create a consistent exposition of the scientific consensus on climate change. In that respect the AR reports succeed brilliantly.

As I recall the charter documents it is to do as you describe for the "man made causes of climate change".

That about sums it up nicely doesn't ti?

Wait....there is a little problem with that....

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change".

Seems to me that the above quote mhaze provided doesn't mean the same thing as a "...consistent exposition of the consensus of the man made causes of climate change."
 
I'm new to the forum and I've been following this thread as a lurker and I'm offering this:

"Whatever may have seemed plausible 10 years ago Global Warming is over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver of world temperatures or Climate Change - indeed evidence is the relationship is more the other way around:-

a) Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of circumstances (eg when the world exits ice-ages). CO2 has no observed net driving effect on temperatures. This fact is established from thousands of years of data which the 'Global Warmers' refuse to properly consider.

b) World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years while CO2 is rising rapidly.

c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago to about 1,000 years ago was warmer than present (indeed Greenland is so named because it was warmer in Viking times), there was LESS ice in the Arctic and there was notably LESS CO2 than now.

The UN Climate Committee - the IPCC - is deliberately ignoring or covering-up these facts which show in official data."

The above is from Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist and founder of WeatherAction.com

In my OP I'm looking for a reasoned response from both sides in this debate. Is he accurate in points b) and c) in particular?

I used to be convinced of AGW now I'm not so sure.
 
I'm new to the forum and I've been following this thread as a lurker and I'm offering this:

"Whatever may have seemed plausible 10 years ago Global Warming is over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver of world temperatures or Climate Change - indeed evidence is the relationship is more the other way around:-

a) Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of circumstances (eg when the world exits ice-ages). CO2 has no observed net driving effect on temperatures. This fact is established from thousands of years of data which the 'Global Warmers' refuse to properly consider.

b) World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years while CO2 is rising rapidly.

c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago to about 1,000 years ago was warmer than present (indeed Greenland is so named because it was warmer in Viking times), there was LESS ice in the Arctic and there was notably LESS CO2 than now.

The UN Climate Committee - the IPCC - is deliberately ignoring or covering-up these facts which show in official data."

The above is from Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist and founder of WeatherAction.com

In my OP I'm looking for a reasoned response from both sides in this debate. Is he accurate in points b) and c) in particular?

I used to be convinced of AGW now I'm not so sure.

If you think all this, you have not studied the matter in any depth AT ALL.

I could educate you. I could refute your points. But this has been done literally dozens of times here over the last several years - those specific points, too. It seems that some people go off and read various right-wing crank web sites and them come here and regurgitate whatever the supposed refutations of reality they read there were. Funny, huh?

So, go use the "Search" button above and look for keywords "AGW" and "Global Warming" and you'll get your education - supposing that is what you are actually interested in.
 
If you think all this, you have not studied the matter in any depth AT ALL.

I could educate you. I could refute your points. But this has been done literally dozens of times here over the last several years - those specific points, too. It seems that some people go off and read various right-wing crank web sites and them come here and regurgitate whatever the supposed refutations of reality they read there were. Funny, huh?

So, go use the "Search" button above and look for keywords "AGW" and "Global Warming" and you'll get your education - supposing that is what you are actually interested in.

I was asking for views on what Piers Corbyn was saying. I've read in previous posts the views of "layman" don't count (or words to that effect)

So, that's why I'm asking and no I haven't found answers to these points elseware on the forum. Maybe you could give the links?
 
As Ben says all these points have been refuted many times on this forum. Look at almost any AGW thread.

Or look here:

Thanks, There is a lot of reading there! I may come back to check I understand correctly. (Yes, I know i'm only a layman)
 
I was asking for views on what Piers Corbyn was saying.

There is no basis in the literature for any of it, and indeed most of his claims are indirect contradiction to what is in the scientific literature. In particular a & b is simply false c is slightly indeterminate but probably false and certainly not supported in the literature.

We don’t know if Greenland was warmer in Viking times or not, reasonably precise global climate reconstructions only go back ~2000 years, but they show present day is at least as warm as any time in that period and that changes in global temperature over the last 100 years is nearly 10X faster then any comparable span in that period.

There are also multiple sites around the world where artifacts that have been buried in ice for 5000+ years are now thawing out. Keep in mind that for this to begin to happen temperatures need to already be higher then when they froze.
 
....There are also multiple sites around the world where artifacts that have been buried in ice for 5000+ years are now thawing out. Keep in mind that for this to begin to happen temperatures need to already be higher then when they froze.
And that's a statement that has either no meaning or little.

A. Farms prosper in Greenland.
B. Farms are covered in ice in Greenland and everyone there dies.
C. Farms slowly in modern day begin to be uncovered as ice melts.

Conclusion: C is warmer than B!

Misdirection.

The issue was A compared to C.

...
The above is from Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist and founder of WeatherAction.com

In my OP I'm looking for a reasoned response from both sides in this debate. Is he accurate in points b) and c) in particular?

I used to be convinced of AGW now I'm not so sure.
I doubt if you've quoted (c) from Corbyn exactly. He was referring to the medieval Warm Period, but this did not extend from 10K - 1K ago.
 
Last edited:
hmm...





"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change".

Seems to me that the above quote mhaze provided doesn't mean the same thing as a "...consistent exposition of the consensus of the man made causes of climate change."
Yes, this has me baffled.

For a scientific organization to use these phrases:

"consistent exposition"
"consensus"
"man made causes"


and then "to succeed brilliantly"

...would be preconceived bias and groupthink on an order I hadn't even conceived (and do not believe) the authors of WG1 of AR4 held.

So did they ever use these phrases in this way? I don't think so, but as has been noted, some of the material has been removed from public access.

Still I don't think so - it's too glaring a statement of bias.
 
Going back to the OP (remember that?) Not one of you AGW Truthers has yet told me how it is that eliminating HADCRUT3 changes anything.

Are you going to get to that?

Here we compare the median January ice for the 1972-1974 period with the median January ice for the 2003-2007 period...
 

Attachments

  • 1972-1974.gif
    1972-1974.gif
    34 KB · Views: 1
  • 2003-2007.gif
    2003-2007.gif
    34.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I'm sure all the Deniers will stay quiet on that one, being Deniers of Truthiness.
 
Yes, this has me baffled.

For a scientific organization to use these phrases:

"consistent exposition"
"consensus"
"man made causes"


and then "to succeed brilliantly"

...would be preconceived bias and groupthink on an order I hadn't even conceived (and do not believe) the authors of WG1 of AR4 held.

So did they ever use these phrases in this way? I don't think so, but as has been noted, some of the material has been removed from public access.

Still I don't think so - it's too glaring a statement of bias.

English not your first language I guess. Well I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt in that case.
 
We don’t know if Greenland was warmer in Viking times or not, reasonably precise global climate reconstructions only go back ~2000 years

Why rely on reconstructions?

Did no Vikings write down what they saw in Greenland?
 
Sure they wrote lots of things down. But you know, you can't trust those old writings. Like they were probably drunk all the time. And they didn't have real truthy sciency types around hiding the decline. Now that, in their case, would likely have led to some serious drinking.
 
Why rely on reconstructions?

Did no Vikings write down what they saw in Greenland?

The Sagas mention Greenland and its settlement, but the people who went there lost contact with Iceland and the rest of Europe during the MIA and became extinct. No writings from them exist that I am aware of. There has been a lot of archeology on one of their settlements, however.
 
Wikipedia says;

According to the sagas, Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for a period of three years, due to a murder. He sailed to Greenland, where he explored the coastline and claimed certain lands as his own. He then returned to Iceland to bring people to settle on Greenland. The date of establishment of the colony is said, in the Icelandic sagas, to have been AD 985, when 25 ships left with Erik the Red. Only 14 arrived safely in Greenland. This date has been approximately confirmed by radiocarbon dating of some remains at the first settlement at Brattahlid (now Qassiarsuk), which yielded a date of about 1000. According to the sagas, it was also in the year 1000 that Erik's son, Leif Eirikson, left the settlement to discover Vinland, generally assumed to be located in what is now Newfoundland.

This colony existed as three settlement areas — the larger Eastern settlement, the smaller Western settlement, and the still smaller Middle Settlement (which is sometimes considered part of the Eastern). Population estimates vary from highs of only 2000 to as many as 10,000 people. More recent estimates such as that of Dr. Niels Lynnerup in "Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga by Fitzhugh Ww and William W. Fitzhugh", have tended toward the lower figure. Ruins of around 600 farms have been found in the two settlements, 500 in the Eastern settlement, 95 in the Western settlement, and 20 in the Middle. This was a significant colony (the population of modern Greenland is only 56,000) and it carried on trade in ivory from walrus tusks with Europe as well as exporting rope, sheep, seals and cattle hides according to one 13th century account. The colony depended on Europe (Iceland and Norway) for iron tools, wood, especially for boat building, which they also may have obtained from coastal Labrador, supplemental foods, and religious and social contacts. Trade ships from Iceland and Norway (from late 13th century all ships were forced by law to sail directly to Norway) traveled to Greenland every year and would sometimes overwinter in Greenland.

In 1126, a diocese was founded at Garðar (now Igaliku). It was subject to the Norwegian archdiocese of Nidaros (now Trondheim); at least five churches in Norse Greenland are known from archeological remains. In 1261, the population accepted the overlordship of the Norwegian King as well, although it continued to have its own law. In 1380 the Norwegian kingdom entered into a personal union with the Kingdom of Denmark. After initially thriving, the Norse settlements declined in the 14th century. The Western Settlement was abandoned around 1350. In 1378, there was no longer a bishop at Garðar. After 1408, when a marriage was recorded, not many written records mention the settlers. There are correspondence between the Pope and the Biskop Bertold af Garde from same year. The Danish Cartographer Claudius Clavus seem to have visited Greenland in 1420 from documents written by Nicolas Germanus and Henricus Martellus who had access to original cartographic notes and map by Clavus. Two mathematical manuscripts containing the second chart of the Claudius Clavus map from his travel to Greenland where he himself mapped the area were found during the late 20th century by the Danish scholar Bjönbo and Petersen. (Originals in Hofbibliothek at Vienna. A Greenlander in Norway, on visit; it is also mentioned in a Norwegian Diploma from 1426, [Peder Grønlendiger])
 
TellyKNeasuss, you sometimes provide some interesting references and insight, but sometimes your posts are really quite disappointing.

Who has said statistical models change temperatures? Nobody as far as I am aware.

Turn the problem around. Can we at least agree on the fact that there is natural variability in the climate system? And that natural variability is clearly influenced by factors such as cloud cover? Since we cannot deterministically predict these variations at present, we need a model to represent them. Since they cannot be deterministically described, they must be described by a stochastic model.

Do you really believe the spectral power drops to zero at the centennial scale? It seems unlikely, don't you agree? The main difference between a Markovian model (used extensively in climate science, e.g. the Nychka degrees of freedom calculation) and a Hurst model is at the centennial scale and upwards. Neither of these have zero spectral power at large scales, but they are different. Are you really confident you know the right one to choose? What are you going to use to justify that choice?

And yes, you *do* have to choose one (although the choice is wider than these two; you could choose a third option not yet on the table. It must be credible, though). You cannot meaningfully analyse data without a statistical model, no matter what people on here claim. Why do you think Markovian dependency is more credible in this case than Hurst? Please bear in mind that all of the analyses that you have read; even the realclimate and tamino links in this thread do not dispute the presence of Hurst-like behaviour.

If the warming of the past 4 decades is just a positive feedback set up by some natural warming trend, physically what might the feedback mechanism be? When fitting a statistical model, how does one separate the natural variance from variance introduced by anthropogenic activities?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom