Global warming discussion IV

[Trakar]

Take your pick Trakar, Medieval Warming, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming and many more in the Holocene interglacial,
...(Trakar - numpty bloggery omitted, such is not compelling or even reliable evidence)

None of these have the rate or extent of warming which have occurred over the last 200 years.

Figure SPM.1. - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

(Petit 1999) "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica" - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/full/399429a0.html

"Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia" - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html

"No pause in the increase of hot temperature extremes" - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2145.html

In summary, this analysis shows that not only is there no pause in the evolution of the warmest daily extremes over land but that they have continued unabated over the observational record. Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that the most ‘extreme’ extremes show the greatest change. This is particularly relevant for climate change impacts, as changes in the warmest temperature extremes over land are of the most relevance to human health, agriculture, ecosystems and infrastructure

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 4 | MARCH 2014 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange

 

[Pixel42]

Tell me Haig or anyone else why I would be interested in the climate for 65 million years ago?

How the climate has responded to natural forcings in the past (Milankovich cycles, volcanism, plate tectonics etc) can tell us lot about how we should expect it to respond to the forcing we are causing by increasing atmospheric CO2.

 

[Haig]

Got any proof?

There is lots of proof Lennart.

Why don't you start from HERE but you need to read it this time also HERE ... then do your own research

 

[Lennart Hyland]

How the climate has responded to natural forcings in the past (Milankovich cycles, volcanism, plate tectonics etc) can tell us lot about how we should expect it to respond to the forcing we are causing by increasing atmospheric CO2.

Thanks! Thats better!

 

[Trakar]

There were lots and lots of dinosaurs, and some of them - like sauropods - we really really big.

One of the proposed methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to tax agricultural production of methane produced by bovine flatulence.

Cows fart. All herbivores fart.

Cows weigh about 400kg.

A sauropod could weigh up to 50 tonnes or more, over 100 times more than a cow.

Therefore each of them must have produced at least 100 times more methane than a cow. We know from TV that there were lots of sauropods. You couldn't even have a decent picnic 65 mya, because as soon as you found a nice tree, some bleeding brontosaurus would come and eat it!

The world didn't burn up 65 millions years ago, despite the eleventy billion times more methane the sauropods farted.

Case closed.

Congratulations!
I would not have believed it, had I not witnessed it personally.

I did not think anyone could or would ever top Haig's posts with regard to density and volume of inaccuracies, lies and completely irrelevant inanities. he now has his work cut out for him if he wishes to challenge for the title.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

There is lots of proof Lennart.

Why don't you start from HERE but you need to read it this time also HERE ... then do your own research

Sorry no those two links doesnt explain why we cant influence the climate.

 

[Haig]

Sorry no those two links doesnt explain why we cant influence the climate.

Look at this Lennart "Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."

Get it now? "there was an extreme ice age at the end of the Ordovician 350 mya and CO2 was 4,400 ppm"

If the Earth didn't burn up when Co2 was 4,400 ppm then we are safe and our atmosphere is indeed CO2- impoverished!

If you still think the trace gas Co2 that humans put out control our climate after that ... well

Lennart for humans to control the climate we would need to control our variable star

Studies Show Weakening Sun, Possible New Ice Age pdf

 

[Haig]

Where Is the Top Of The Atmosphere (TOA)?

“There are astonishing differences in the modeled estimates of the past, present and future imbalances and the three components that make up the top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy budget.”

The Real Problem

Maybe the problem is the same one associated with climate models in general. They are built on inadequate data and inadequate understanding of the structure and mechanisms of the real world. These problems are then exacerbated and aggravated by creating mechanisms to hide, ignore or even falsify the situation. As Raschke notes in a paper titled, “How accurate did GCMs compute the insolation at TOA for AMIP2?”

All models should reproduce the known major state and related fluxes of energy, mass and momentum with high accuracy. But quite large disagreement was found in various quantities, in particular at higher latitudes over both hemispheres [Gates et al., 1999].

 

[The Atheist]

I did not think anyone could or would ever top Haig's posts with regard to density and volume of inaccuracies, lies and completely irrelevant inanities. he now has his work cut out for him if he wishes to challenge for the title.

Thanks!

I must still acknowledge his superior skill in reading a graph showing a constant increase as evidence of something not increasing.

 

[lomiller]

That cuts both ways

Some bedtime reading

A detailed review of the book: ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’, by Mark Steyn

This again?

"The Hockey Stick" has been confirmed by at least a dozen peer reviews papers. Everything McIntyre and McKitrick yammerd about has been either debunked as bad math/science or been shown to have no impact on the final results.

Analyze the same data with the same technique after fixing the errors McIntyre &McKitrick made and you get a hockey stick. Analyze that same data with a variety of different techniques and you get a hockey stick. Analyze different/more data with the same techniques you get a hockey stick. Analyze more data with different techniques you still get a hockey stick.

 

[Haig]

Thanks!

I must still acknowledge his superior skill in reading a graph showing a constant increase as evidence of something not increasing.

Thanks!

No, no you're the best. I must agree with Trakar HERE you've nailed it

Slight correction: In that the "normal" graph has been shown increasing is due to recovery from the LIA, the accelerating increase of the 20th century is due to a grand max from old sol that has now reversed as it heads rapidly into a grand min throwing the warmist alarmist crowd into a frenzied panic

The Pause lives Pause on Pausing the Pause

btw Ocean Data is Wrong in the First Place

 

[Trakar]

Thanks!

I must still acknowledge his superior skill in reading a graph showing a constant increase as evidence of something not increasing.

LOL

 

[CapelDodger]

I must still acknowledge his superior skill in reading a graph showing a constant increase as evidence of something not increasing.

It's actually the naive response to the flat black line drawn through the graph. It is, of course, simply a flat black line but Haig naturally takes it to be the trend. Or something. Anything but just a flat black line drawn through the graph. Which is all it is.

A remarkable number of people fall for stuff like that, as we all well know and, I trust, prosper from.

 

[Reality Check]

A good place(s) to start to understand what the Pause is, is to read through the current count: 52 excuses...

A better place to start to understand what the Pause is, Haig, is to ignore the lies and ignorance in WUWT articles:

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.

You are repeating 26 August 2015 Haig: WUWT and HockeySchtick are ignorant about basic science.

What we find is a web site lying about the 97% (now 98%) scientific consensus by climate scientists on AGW by cherry picking the opinions of some climate change skeptics about the classification of their papers. The author lies when he states "To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper." because all he lists are anti-AGW replies - not the pro-AGW replies he should have received. The replies he lists are largely wrong because they did not understand the categories.

 

[Reality Check]

Actually, taking only the satellite data (the land temperature data being so error prone) there has been a cooling over the last decade, never mind a just a Pause.

Actually that is total ignorance of climate science from Piers Corbyn, Haig!
Climate is not measured over scales of a decade.
Satellite data is more "error prone" than land temperatures (but maybe better than sea temperatures). Surface temperatures are actual measurements of temperatures by thermometers. Satellite data is records of emissions from the atmosphere. It is modeling of those emissions that convert them into temperatures.
The cooling over the last decade is a half lie - from 2005, RSS shows cooling, UAH shows warming.
Piers Corbyn is obsessing about the Sun's effects on the Earth and denying actual climate science.
Piers Corbyn is so in denial of science that he spoke at Electric Universe 2014. The Electric Universe followers believe in Velikovsky's delusion that planets zoomed around the Solar System to explain various myths in recent times and the extra layer of delusion added by the Thunderbolts authors.

Notice that the key to understanding climate change is knowing how to distinguish ignorant cranks from climate scientists, Haig !

 

[Reality Check]

Well measurement by satellite (UAH & RSS) doesn't agree with you

Which is a blog repeating lies from Bob Tisdale (i.e. WUWT), Haig !
UAH has a warming trend from 1997.
RSS has a cooling trend from 1997.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

And once again - cherry picking a start date close to the usually warm year of 1998 is Bob Tisdale basically lying.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Andy May lies in his blog entry on WUWT

A detailed review of the book: ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’, by Mark Steyn

Some bed time fairy stories from WUWT, Haig.
We already have 8 blog entries with lies and ignorance from WUWT.
Here is Anthony Watts posting a Book review by Andy May who repeats what looks like Mark Steyn lying by cherry picking quotes from scientists instead of looking at the real climate science.
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Thus
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.
He doubles up on the lie by citing McIntyre & McKitrick 2005 but not the debunking of that paper by the results of Wahl 2007.
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

ETA: Total ignorance of "Contrary to the myth that 97% of climate scientists believe we are headed toward a man-made climate doom"
There is an actual 97% consensus of climate scientists in the real world that AGW exists. There is no published consensus on the consequences of the AGW except maybe that they are bad, e.g. rising sea levels = large scale resettlements of people , goodbye many coastal cities, etc.

 

[Reality Check]

If we look at the temperature over the last 10 and 25 thousand years ...

Sorry, Haig, but that would be an abysmally ignorant act.
We have

• instrumental and proxy temperatures that show that the observed global warming is actually happening.
• measurements of increasing CO2 and the reality of the greenhouse effect.
• measurements that show that our emissions are causing that increase.
• models that only fit the existing data with increasing CO2.

Thus global warming is not a mythical recovery from an ice age or the inanity of thinking that past climate changes involved human beings!
It does not matter which cranks on the Internet you select - climate science looks at the real world.

Oh dear, a Google Books search as if you were ignorant about the existence of scientific literature, Haig!

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Sheldon Walker looks at trends in weather in his WUWT blog entry

How fast is the Earth warming?

We already have 8 blog entries with lies and ignorance from WUWT.
And
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, etc.

This Guest essay by Sheldon Walker is not that bad until "Calculating the slope over 121 months (the month being calculated plus 60 months on either side), gives a slope with a good degree of sensitivity". That is ignoring what climate is - it is trends over periods of decades. The standard is 30 years. Climate scientists know that trends are statistically insignificant (cannot be distinguished from noise) on smaller scales (studies hint that ~17 years is the limit). Less than that and we have weather.
Thus Graph 2 onward is just wrong.

31 August 2015 Haig: Sheldon Walker looks at trends in weather in his WUWT blog entry! A small bit of ignorance.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Ball cites the ignorant Tisdale and displays ignorance in a WUWT blog entry

Where Is the Top Of The Atmosphere (TOA)?

We already have 8 blog entries with lies and ignorance from WUWT.
And

• 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, etc.
• 31 August 2015 Haig: Sheldon Walker looks at trends in weather in his WUWT blog entry! A small bit of ignorance.

This is Tim Ball basically whining about there are different models for the TOA energy imbalance (Wow!). Ball thinks that Bob Tisdale is a valid source of climate science. Ball goes on about the definition of TOA being arbitrary, e.g. 100 km altitude. Ball ends up with an ignorant statement:
"As with most climate measures, the supposed impact of all greenhouse gases is less than the error factor in a multitude of the inadequate data sources"
The impact of all greenhouse gasses is calculated a multitude of scientifically adequate data sources. The range ("error factor") in those data sources gives a range (error factor") in the impact of all greenhouse gasses.

31 August 2015 Haig: Ball cites the ignorant Tisdale and displays some ignorance in a WUWT blog entry.

Timothy Ball

Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a Canadian geographer and historical climatologist, best known for his public opposition to the scientific consensus in the global warming controversy. A retired professor, he taught in the department of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until 1996.[4]

His doctorate was in geography, not climatology. His papers are on historical climatology, mostly about Canada. He retired in 1996.
Ball has a history of funding by petrochemical companies and associations with the Heartland Institute. The real hint that he is a crank is

Ball rejects not only greenhouse gas-induced climate change but existence of the greenhouse effect itself.