Global warming discussion IV

[Megalodon]

A case could be made in the mid-'80's that Greenland around 1000CE was as warm, but thirty years of warming have put paid to that. In recent years it has rained on Greenland in winter: this is not normal, and was never remarked on in the past.

There were two Norse settlements, both in the south-west on the Labrador Sea, warmed by an arm of the Gulf Stream. Which is to say, they inhabited the warmest part of Greenland only. The main draw of the place was walrus ivory, which as we all know became a sought-after product when the Moors cut off the African ivory trade in the 8thCE. When the Portuguese re-opened the trade in the 15thCE Greenland was abandoned. At the same time Basque fishermen were plying the Labrador Sea, on the quiet, to enormous profit.

Not everything's down to climate change. Everything is down to economics, though.

I can guarantee that, if you go back enough, the land mass now known as Greenland was warmer than now.

What I need Haig to clarify is if he thinks that Greenland is a good proxy for global temperatures.

Because otherwise his obsession with Greenland temperature reconstructions would reek of cherry picking, and we know that Haig wouldn't do such a thing.

 

[Haig]

I can guarantee that, if you go back enough, the land mass now known as Greenland was warmer than now.

What I need Haig to clarify is if he thinks that Greenland is a good proxy for global temperatures.

Because otherwise his obsession with Greenland temperature reconstructions would reek of cherry picking, and we know that Haig wouldn't do such a thing.

Well Megaldon you haven't addressed ANY of the points raised HERE I think Greenland is a great example of how alarmists can fiddle climate data but it not so easy with the historical records.

Of course it's NOT just Greenland, it's Europe, North America and South America as this study makes very clear it was GLOBAL ...

Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming

The data show that the most extreme cold phases of the Little Ice Age -- in the mid-15th and then again in the early 18th centuries -- were synchronous in Europe and South America. There is one stark difference: while in continental north-west Europe, bogs became wetter, in Tierra del Fuego, the bog became drier -- in both cases probably a result of a dramatic equator-ward shift of moisture-bearing winds.

These extreme times coincide with periods when it is known that the sun was unusually quiet. In the late 17th to mid-18th centuries it had very few sunspots -- fewer even than during the run of recent cold winters in Europe, which other UK scientists have linked to a relatively quiet sun.

So what do you consider a good proxy for global temperatures?

Is it Mann’s tree ring proxy train wreck ?

Some of Mann’s own colleagues warned Mann about the unreliability of tree rings – this email from Tom Wigley, discussing how his son’s high school project falsified Mann’s research.

“Also, stationarity is the key. Let me tell you a story. A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation. Interestingly, the temp correlations are much more ephemeral, so the complexities conspire to make this linkage non stationary.”

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0682.txt

 

[Belz...]

Global warming? Never heard of it.

Rising CO2 levels? Can't see it, so doesn't exist.

Catastrophic outcomes? Don't like to think about it, so won't happen.

Does happen? Only temporary.

Not temporary? Not our fault, though.

Our fault? Well, can't do anything about it now!




Climate change deniers are both funny and frustrating.

 

[Haig]

Climate change deniers are both funny and frustrating.

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE deniers are both funny and frustrating.

FTFY

 

[Belz...]

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE deniers are both funny and frustrating.

FTFY

Well, if you want to get down to it, the sun drives everything, as it's almost the sole source of energy we get. So it causes everything here directly or indirectly, save for the heat from radioactivity.

But so what? That is so much of an oversimplification that it's not worth responding to, except to point out that, in real life, the sun's position, intensity and angle are but one thing. Volcanoes, meteor crashes, and a host of other factors, including flooding the atmosphere with too much CO2 for the ecosystem to handle, can change the climate.

Do you deny any of that? Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that we are producing it, or that there is a threshold over which said gases have an impact on climate and cannot be removed by the ecosystem?

Let's drop ideology, wants and don't wants, and hyperbole. Let's talk as if we're robots or people with absolutely no skin in this game. Where does the chain of logic and evidence break down, to you?

 

[Haig]

Well, if you want to get down to it, the sun drives everything, as it's almost the sole source of energy we get. So it causes everything here directly or indirectly, save for the heat from radioactivity.

But so what? That is so much of an oversimplification that it's not worth responding to, except to point out that, in real life, the sun's position, intensity and angle are but one thing. Volcanoes, meteor crashes, and a host of other factors, including flooding the atmosphere with too much CO2 for the ecosystem to handle, can change the climate.

Do you deny any of that? Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that we are producing it, or that there is a threshold over which said gases have an impact on climate and cannot be removed by the ecosystem?

Let's drop ideology, wants and don't wants, and hyperbole. Let's talk as if we're robots or people with absolutely no skin in this game. Where does the chain of logic and evidence break down, to you?

You're missing the point!

Things/Nature are going his way

Consequently, we should fear a deep temperature drop, but not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth.

All your bluster won't change that - deal with it, WHY take the risk!

 

[Belz...]

You're missing the point!

Things/Nature are going his way



All your bluster won't change that - deal with it, WHY take the risk!

I asked you to attempt a dispassionate, cold answer to a simple question, and not only did you dodge it, you continued your pretentious, belittling attitude. Would you like to try again?

It's got nothing to do with bluster or whatnot. It's about mechanisms and observations. Again I ask you: Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that we are producing it, or that there is a threshold over which said gases have an impact on climate and cannot be removed by the ecosystem? Where does the chain of logic and evidence break down, to you?

 

[foophil]

Global warming? Never heard of it.

Rising CO2 levels? Can't see it, so doesn't exist.

Catastrophic outcomes? Don't like to think about it, so won't happen.

Does happen? Only temporary.

Not temporary? Not our fault, though.

Our fault? Well, can't do anything about it now!




Climate change deniers are both funny and frustrating.

There are the stages of AGW denying that I've seen and you've hit on them for the most part.

1.) It isn't warming at all. Some members of the U.S. Congress fall here - James Inhofe I'm looking at you. Thankfully they are a rapidly dying breed.

2.) It is warming, but that is due to natural variations. Humans cannot affect the climate in any way. This is where Haig falls (and many of our Republican presidential nominees). Again, thankfully this is a dying breed as the overwhelming evidence shows we can and are affecting the climate in a major way.

3.) It is warming and we are partly responsible for it, but not in a major way. Probably a majority of the "deniers" fall into this category. They don't think we have a meaningful impact, and advancing technology can take care of the damage we'd cause.

4.) It is warming and we are predominantly responsible for it, but there is nothing we can do about it. The human race will go on warming the planet, and therefore there is no reason to change what we are doing in our little part of it. This is sad, but at least it is a somewhat strong argument. A fatalist attitude I suppose.

5.) It is warming, we are predominantly responsible for it, and we can change away from a carbon based society, but the cost to human kind is too great to do so. Not much to say about this one other than again, science is showing that to not be true.

6.) It is warming, we are predominantly responsible for it, and we can and should start making the changes necessary immediately. I guess this is where the majority of the science community stands. The only debate really is how quickly and drastically we should implement the changes, and at what up front costs.


Did I more or less hit on everything?

 

[Belz...]

Here's my take on it: the climate is changing and there will be major consequences, and humans are responsible for much of it; we can and should do something about it, but we won't until it's too late. Lots of people will die. Earth will change. Life will go on however it will.

 

[Haig]

I asked you to attempt a dispassionate, cold answer to a simple question, and not only did you dodge it, you continued your pretentious, belittling attitude. Would you like to try again?

I gave you a very clear cold answer and you ignore it. Would YOU like to try again?

It's got nothing to do with bluster or whatnot.

That's NOT what I'm getting from you!

It's about mechanisms and observations.

I agree on that.

Again I ask you: Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that we are producing it, or that there is a threshold over which said gases have an impact on climate and cannot be removed by the ecosystem? Where does the chain of logic and evidence break down, to you?

Sure CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it's not the most important factor. Natural forcing has shown that. Also the ice core data show that CO2 lags temperature rise it does not lead it. Do you dispute any of this?

I guess you do but the argument will be decided by our variable Sun as it is currently descending into a Grand Solar Minimum that has and will continue to ... confound you.

 

[Belz...]

Sure CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it's not the most important factor.

How is that relevant? Something that is not normally the most important factor can become much more important if you increase its value, can it not?

the argument will be decided by our variable Sun as it is currently descending into a Grand Solar Minimum that has and will continue to ... confound you.

You say that with incredible certainty, even though climate scientists disagree with you, which leads to my next question: how come you think you are more correct than they are?

 

[Trakar]

How is that relevant? Something that is not normally the most important factor can become much more important if you increase its value, can it not?

You say that with incredible certainty, even though climate scientists disagree with you, which leads to my next question: how come you think you are more correct than they are?

YouTube idiocy and confirmational bias, primarily, but there is plenty of room for other factors (for example stubborn ignorance and political devotion) to play roles though some might argue that these are minor influences that influence many on both sides of this topic regardless of the facts and evidence.

 

[macdoc]

Haig

Also the ice core data show that CO2 lags temperature rise it does not lead it.

only when CO2 is a feedback. Your grasp of physics is appalling...

A fundamental misconception about the role that carbon dioxide plays in glacial transitions has helped fuel the argument that the lag time between temperature and CO2 in the paleoclimate record casts doubt on carbon dioxide as an important greenhouse gas.

You are wrong....period.....read why- this has been presented to you several times.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...a-feedback-and-forcing-in-the-climate-system/

CO2 is the primary forcing in climate change at this period as it was during the Deccan traps for a different reason. Can we move on from this repetitious nonsense that Haig trots out. There was a Mod Warning regarding it.

 

[Haig]

Haig

macdoc

only when CO2 is a feedback. Your grasp of physics is appalling...

It's NOT only when CO2 is a feedback. Your grasp of physics is appalling...

You are wrong....period.....read why- this has been presented to you several times.

No, you are wrong .... period ...

CO2 is the primary forcing in climate change at this period as it was during the Deccan traps for a different reason.

Not everyone agrees CO2 is the be all and end all ...

CO2 ‘control knob’ fallacy (?)

The feedbacks on glacial time scales are obvious from plots of time series of CO2 concentration and inferred surface temperature, whereby surface temperature variations leads the variations in CO2. On geological time scales, there are presumably a whole host of other relevant processes, not to mention the sequestration of carbon into fossilized organic materials (otherwise known as fossil fuels).

So, how should we think about all this on decadal to century time scales, which are the timescales of most relevance for CO2 mitigation policy making? Well, the ‘pause’ should give pause to anyone who thinks that CO2 controls temperature/climate/weather on the time scale of a decade. What about multi-decadal to century timescales? On these time scales, the big issue is the natural (unforced) internal variability.

 

[macdoc]

HAig

It's NOT only when CO2 is a feedback. Your grasp of physics is appalling...

in his best grade six rhetoric.....
So tell us....when was it not a feedback?
And what occurred.?

 

[CapelDodger]

It's NOT only when CO2 is a feedback. Your grasp of physics is appalling...

How can temperature rise lag CO₂ increase when CO₂ increase is the forcing? That would require some form of precognition, would it not?

 

[CapelDodger]

What I need Haig to clarify is if he thinks that Greenland is a good proxy for global temperatures.

I hope that's a desire not a need, 'cos you ain't gonna get it.

One might argue that this belief is implicit in Haig's belief that his cite is definitive, but that would be to make the bold assumption that Haig gave it a moment's thought beyond it saying what he wants to hear and comes from, to him, an authoritative source.

We rarely get actual thoughts from Haig and when they occur it's stuff like "effect can precede cause if I want, so there"; one can see why he prefers sticking to blank citations and unintentionally ironic smilies.

Because otherwise his obsession with Greenland temperature reconstructions would reek of cherry picking, and we know that Haig wouldn't do such a thing.

If he tried he'd come back with gooseberries.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Watts and McIntyre lie about the removal of bad proxy data being dubious, etc.

So what do you consider a good proxy for global temperatures? ...

Certainly not the ignorance and lies you persist in citing from WUWT, etc., Haig.
The first 12 ignorant and/or lying citations by Haig.
Number 13 is Anthony Watts parroting a lie from Steve McIntyre via a Eric Worrall and adding his own lie and ignorance.
McIntyre lies. The "Nature trick" is the replacement of proxy data that is known to be bad with instrumental data that is known to be valid. This is not dubious. This is basic science - use the data that is most reliable .
There is the stupidity from Watts of looking at Climategate emails and ignoring the published climate science literature!
Watts lies about warnings from Russian scientists. The "According to Rashit Hantemirov" quote is about the growth of trees, not about tree rings. The full (not quote mined!) email states nothing about the tree ring data being wrong.
There is the stupidity from Watts of treating an anecdote about a quite irrelevant high school project as science. The project was not on high altitude trees in Russian conditions. Eirik Wigley did find that the tree ring widths had a correlation with temperature and precipitation. The full (not quote mined) email contains Mann's reply addressing Tom Wigley's popint.

2 September 2015 Haig: Watts and McIntyre lie about the removal of bad proxy data being dubious, etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Abdussamatov lied bout the Sun causing global warming

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE deniers are both funny and frustrating.

One more time citing an astrophysicist with the delusion that climate scientists do not know that the Sun exists, Haig !

Whet we have is a 2009 citation that lied about climate science (possibly in this case because of ignorance).
Habibullo Abdussamatov lied when he stated that "observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty"". OPbservasion fo the Sun show that for at least 35 years the Suns output has been decreasing. At the same time global temperatures have been increasing.
There is the ignorance of looking at annual variance ion TSI when climate is trends over decades. Most of the paper is just persisting in ignorance about climate.
There is the idiocy of Fig 8 where he has a sketch of what he thinks temperatures will be as if the Earth did not have an atmosphere and climate science did not exist!
There is the ignorance of going onto warming on Mars and "other planets" (which are not mentioned!).
* Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.

2 September 2015 Haig: Abdussamatov lied bout the Sun causing global warming.

 

[Reality Check]

You're missing the point!

The point is (as you have known for years ), Haig, that 2 September 2015 Haig: Abdussamatov lied bout the Sun causing global warming.
No matter how many times you link to his lie in various disguises.

You really are in massive denial of science with this insistent parroting of the ignorance of Abdussamatov.
13th May 2010 Haig: Russian Scientist, Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Got Global Warming Predictions Wrong!
3rd July 2012 No because he is ignorant of the science that global warming has been disconnected from the Sun for over 30 years and that it is CO2 that is the primary driver of climate change now
29th July 2014 Haig: Habibullo Abdussamatov's 2009 paper is very bad
12th May 2015 Haig: New Maunder Minimum = new Little Ice Age is a fantasy