Global warming discussion III

[r-j]

Starting in March 2013, I've used scientific sources to counter woo woo nonsense, and it doesn't seem to get through. In fact, it seems to make some people double down on ignorance.

You make no effort to discuss the science, you simply make erroneous statements backed by no reasoning or justification, then don't even try to defend them.

I responded to that with even more sources. When I debunk something, I always use sources.

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.

Nor does it go against the grain of basic global warming theory.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

“Since 1896, when Svante Arrhenius first postulated the theory of global warming due to carbon dioxide,

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22724

Instead of any evidence, we see more claims like "It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature." and ""Theory of Global Warming" is something you invented for this thread"

When I use a source that can not be ignored, like NASA, Global Warming Theory Affirmed, it is in fact ignored. Or worse, we see "None of these substitute terms are theories, let alone theories of global warming."

Why? Why would anyone discussing AGW insist, against all scientific evidence, that there is no theory? Say there are no predictions?

When a current (2014) papers clearly says there is a theory, and in fact, says almost exactly what I've said for the last year and half in this thread.

To watch people claim I don't cite sources, or provide evidence for what I say, it's too ironic.

 

[DC]

Like always... the climate trends we see from year to year are variable and can range from seasons, to years, decades, and so on. Judging conclusions based on the geologically short term cycles seems rather pointless to me... It's the reason I've continued being skeptical about the magnitude of effect we've had. I'd rather deal with working out the kinks in the means of reducing it rather than arguing about "how much" of it is "us". And that's rarely resolved in these types of AGW threads.

If you don't agree or care about it, that's great, but then you have no reason to bother trolling me now do you? You didn't read the opinion to know what it concerns so... I have nothing further to discuss with you. Bye.

it has been resolved, in the scientific literature. almost all of it since the mid 20th century. you can also find it in the IPCC AR5. Such things are resolved in the scientific literature, by people that have the expertise to quantify the forcings in the climate system.

in blogs and fora like these, you usualy get a bunch of people that think they just can widlely guess it might be this or that that also has an influence, and never is anything quantified.

there is no point debating that in a layman forum. and i doubt that your knowledge about the climate system is enough to make any meaningfull quantifications of the forcings in the late 20th century. despite there being a huge amount of research into exactly that.

 

[DC]

Starting in March 2013, I've used scientific sources to counter woo woo nonsense, and it doesn't seem to get through. In fact, it seems to make some people double down on ignorance.
I responded to that with even more sources. When I debunk something, I always use sources.


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22724

Instead of any evidence, we see more claims like "It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature." and ""Theory of Global Warming" is something you invented for this thread"

When I use a source that can not be ignored, like NASA, Global Warming Theory Affirmed, it is in fact ignored. Or worse, we see "None of these substitute terms are theories, let alone theories of global warming."

Why? Why would anyone discussing AGW insist, against all scientific evidence, that there is no theory? Say there are no predictions?

When a current (2014) papers clearly says there is a theory, and in fact, says almost exactly what I've said for the last year and half in this thread.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31692&d=1410901007[/qimg]

To watch people claim I don't cite sources, or provide evidence for what I say, it's too ironic.

when will you adress the post that showed you wrong? never? ironic that you are unable to admit an error of yours..... telling.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10065538#post10065538

 

[DC]

Starting in March 2013, I've used scientific sources to counter woo woo nonsense, and it doesn't seem to get through. In fact, it seems to make some people double down on ignorance.
I responded to that with even more sources. When I debunk something, I always use sources.


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22724

Instead of any evidence, we see more claims like "It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature." and ""Theory of Global Warming" is something you invented for this thread"

When I use a source that can not be ignored, like NASA, Global Warming Theory Affirmed, it is in fact ignored. Or worse, we see "None of these substitute terms are theories, let alone theories of global warming."

Why? Why would anyone discussing AGW insist, against all scientific evidence, that there is no theory? Say there are no predictions?

When a current (2014) papers clearly says there is a theory, and in fact, says almost exactly what I've said for the last year and half in this thread.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31692&d=1410901007[/qimg]

To watch people claim I don't cite sources, or provide evidence for what I say, it's too ironic.

several people inclding me have in the last year, explained the theory in great detail to you. you never understood any of it and kept going back to your old trolling.

 

[greybeard]

The pseudo sceptics love their conspiracy theories about scientists improperly adjusting data don't they? After all the allegations in the denialosphere about the data from a weather station in Australia which even made it into one of Murdoch's newspapers it turns out that there is plenty of documentary evidence to suggest what every sensible person realised anyway. The data was adjusted because the station had been moved. Of course nobody would spout such rubbish in this science forum would they?

 

[r-j]

No document has been located which states explicitly that the observation site moved.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml

Well, there seems to be an Australian problem about this.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...perature-records/story-e6frgd0x-1227033714144

 

[greybeard]

R-j who doesn't read blogs (but selectively quotes from them) now links to propaganda from a Murdoch newspaper written before a BoM employee went to great trouble going through the archives to show that there was enough evidence to convince anyone who isn't heavily into conspiracy theories that the station had been moved.

ETA the bit that r-j never quoted:

There is, however, evidence beyond the statistical test indicating that the site at Rutherglen has moved at least once. The Bureau has located 12 documents, covering a period from 1939 and 1978 that provide various pieces of information suggesting a site move.

 

[macdoc]

R-j likely milks his own cow...nat familiar with modern procedures.

Meanwhile...the pause...isn't...

This past August broke records for the hottest August since global temperature records began in 1880, despite cool summer temperatures in parts of Canada.

The world's land and ocean surfaces averaged 16.35 C in August 2014, breaking the previous record set in 1998, reported the U.S. National Climatic Data Center run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The ocean was particularly warm, breaking a record high temperature set in June 2014 with an average global surface temperature of 17.11 C.

more

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/global-heat-record-set-in-august-2014-1.2770506

 

[r-j]

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml

Seems like this is something that could be looked into. Unless it's
some huge secret, why would this be some big deal?

The thing is, how can you know if they changed the data? Or is it raw data?

Certainly if we see the records showing cooling, and they get changed to show warming, how this is done should be transparent, so anyone can look at it.

sources BOM and NCDC

 

[r-j]

One month means pretty much nothing in regards to climate.

The changes, the trends, that is what is important.,

Like looking at the change from the warming trend, an obvious one, to one that shows, well, cooling.

Warming

Cooling.

One obvious thing the two share is a cooling Pacific. Probably why scientists are floating papers saying it explains the pause.

 

[macdoc]

As to the winters getting colder...total hogwash.

In 60 years, the Arctic got two degrees warmer
Statistics Canada crunches temperature readings for 1948 to 2009

NUNATSIAQ NEWS This graph shows the gradual two-degree rise in average temperatures in the Arctic Mountains and Fiords climatic region— which runs from Iqaluit up the coast of Baffin Island. (IMAGE/STATSCAN)
This graph shows the gradual two-degree rise in average temperatures in the Arctic Mountains and Fiords climatic region— which runs from Iqaluit up the coast of Baffin Island. (IMAGE/STATSCAN)
During the past 60 years, from 1948 to 2009, the trend in average annual temperatures for Canada as a whole has increased by 1.4 C.

And, according to a March 23 Statistics Canada report, the strongest warming trends were located in climatic regions that include the Arctic, which they’ve the Arctic Tundra; Arctic Mountains and Fiords; Mackenzie District; and Yukon and North British Columbia Mountains, shown in the map below.

“Temperature trends in Canada,” an EnviroStats report, examined data for 11 climatic regions, including include nearly all of Nunavut and Nunavik, and for all of Canada between 1948 and 2009.

The Mackenzie District climate region recorded the strongest warming trend, rising 2.2 C over normal.

The Arctic Mountains and Fiords climatic region, which includes Iqaluit and the coast of Baffin Island, wasn’t far behind, with an increase of about 2 C during the same 60-year period.

Average winter and spring temperatures got milder over the past 60 years

60 years is a trend....big time.
And Canada is a substantial portion of the Boreal Region....

This is the rise in WINTER average temperatures in Canada over 60 years..

Canada 2.3C

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/Canada/trends-temperature-seasonal.php

 

[greybeard]

These things are only a big deal r-j to people who actually believe that scientists around the world are beavering away to adjust data to show warming where there is none. It's lucky though that you, J.Nova, A Watts and probably Alex Jones as well are on to them.
I realise now that I should have posted my original post about the Rutherglen station in the climate change thread in the conspiracy theory forum. Perhaps a mod will move these posts their.

 

[ehcks]

One month means pretty much nothing in regards to climate.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...4_is_the_warmest_three_month_period_ever.html

April, May, June, and August 2014 are the hottest April, May, June, and August on record. July is still an outlier.

http://www.weather.com/news/science/july-2014-worlds-fourth-hottest-july-noaa-20140819

Though July 2014 was the fourth hottest July and 11th hottest month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/science/earth/july-was-hottest-month-ever-recorded-in-us.html

It was also the hottest July on record for the continental US.

I feel safe in my earlier prediction that 2014 will be the hottest year on record. I will also stick with 2015 being even hotter.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by r-j View Post
One month means pretty much nothing in regards to climate.

OH?? hottest August globally since 1880 means nothing....??/

after

Will 2014 be the hottest year on record? - The Guardian
www.theguardian.com › Environment › The Eco audit
Jul 23, 2014 - After the hottest May and June ever recorded .

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/23/will-2014-be-the-hottest-year-on-record

You are soooo wrong...even the pooch is in hysterics..

 

[Reality Check]

Starting in March 2013, I've used scientific sources to counter woo woo nonsense,....

Actually, r-j, it seems that you have started to lie about scientific sources since you claim to have checked the temperature of a specific weather station but cannot tell us where those records are !

1. r-j (8 September 2014): Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]
2. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source for these specific temperatures which you state are from the University station.
3. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source that shows that the University station is the rooftop one that was moved to O'Hare.
4. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite the source for your "NCDC NH land winter trend" image.
5. r-j (19 September 2014): Please justify what seems to be an arbitrary selection of 1995 as the starting date of the trend line when there is pre-1995 data in the graph.

The last two seem to be answered, but not by you r-j:

He's using this utility: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

and you are purposely cherry picking the starting date to basically lie about the trend in order to confirm your existing bias.
Confirmation that **** is your source?
Justification for the starting date?

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml

Well, there seems to be an Australian problem about this.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...perature-records/story-e6frgd0x-1227033714144

No, r-j - there is a ignorant news article that does not dispute the fact that the Rutherglen weather station was moved !

You should be aware of the stupidity in using raw data from weather stations without looking at and adjusting for changes in the weather station, r-j! After all you claim to know something about climate science.

Well, there seems to be an abysmal level of scholarship from you, r-j - no scientific sources, an news article parroting of the opinion of a climate science "skeptic" :
Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat

...
The conspiracy theory is that BoM is using a technique to selectively tamper with its temperature data so that it better fits with the global warming narrative.
...
The Australian’s environment editor Graham Lloyd was approached to cover the “story” and stepped bravely forward with four pieces in recent days covering Marohasy’s claims.

Lloyd wrote there was now an “escalating row” over the “competence and integrity” of the BoM despite the fact that Marohasy has not published her claims in a peer reviewed journal (the two papers mentioned in Lloyd’s story actually relate to rainfall prediction, not temperature).

Bureau of Meteorology Media Statement – Climate Records (BoM - Bureau of Meteorology)

Contrary to assertions in some parts of the media, the Bureau is not altering climate records to exaggerate estimates of global warming. ...

 

[r-j]

OH?? hottest August globally since 1880 means nothing....??

First, you are confusing weather with climate. It's like claiming a record early snow means something.

it is the earliest instance of snow the region has seen in more than 125 years, according to the National Weather Service.

source

Rapid City sees earliest snowfall on record as winter weather plunges into U.S.

source

As for "hottest ever", it is meaningless on a global scale. The lack of data from the past means it's impossible to claim that. What it actually means is "the people who do the GISS analysis of temperature anomalies claim it's the hottest ever".

GISS SAYS HOTTER THAN EVER BEFORE!

RSS data shows the pause in tropospheric temperatures continues.

sources GISS and RSS data base


Looking at the GLOBAL February anomaly, you can see GLOBALLY last February was no warmer than 1981. If you believe the data, there was no warming from 1981-2014, for February.

Science, it's better than hysteria.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/rutherglen/rutherglen-station.shtml

Seems like this is something that could be looked into.

As I noted in my last post, r-j:

You should be aware of the stupidity in using raw data from weather stations without looking at and adjusting for changes in the weather station, r-j! After all you claim to know something about climate science.

Only ignorant conspiracy theorists would think that there is something to look into when accounting for changes in weather stations is standard and valid science.

 

[CapelDodger]

r-j : in post 701 you quote me as saying something I have no recollection of and cannot find in the last 4 pages. Just how far in the past are you living?

Any success with the Theory of Global Cooling yet? Or even the Theory of NH Winter Cooling?

Also, just in case, if this NH winter is a warm one will that be a "short-term measurement" which signfies nothing? Or will it mark the demise of "NH winter cooling"? (Originally, of course, you believed that global winters were getting colder but we'll let that go since you've recanted.)

You currently favour the trend from 1995; will that move on to 1996 next year? If 20 years is good enough now it'll be good enough then. 1995 was noticeably warmer than the years before and the two years following, of course, but you can't have chosen it simply for that reason. Nobody would do that.

OK, Monckton would do that, and Lindzen, Spencer, Christy. Singer. Curry, obviously. Plimer. Now I come to think of it there's no end of people who would, but fortunately they're not here. You go by the evidence, wherever it might lead and however uncomfortable the conclusion. We know this because you've told us, and it's an attitude which I, for one, applaud.

More cynical types than me might point out that you always arrive at conclusions you find comfortable, but there are always some mean-minded people in every crowd.

 

[CapelDodger]

OH?? hottest August globally since 1880 means nothing....??/

If one is comfortable with the conclusion that historical data has been deliberately corrupted then this does indeed mean nothing. It could have been much hotter loads of times before 1950 and nobody would have noticed. They didn't have Al Gore to point it out back then, you see.