• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Global warming

So, how did polar bears survive for thousands of years in previous periods with much warmer climate? The disclaimer "it's a computer model" says volumes.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/269.pdf


That's odd. Nowhere in those news articles does it mention previous climate.

Here's what's odd.

You took it seriously, went to the trouble to find research that rebutted the obvious logical errors, posted that, and were met by denial and disinformation.

Your article clearly shows that you are right that the bears survived past warmer climates.

And we've obviously got a major starburst media campaign on AGW again.
 
So, how did polar bears survive for thousands of years in previous periods with much warmer climate?

Can you read?
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/269.pdf

Yes, and I can write, comprehend, and think. I could even talk down to you, if I saw any point in it. Mostly what I do is respond to other people's posts.

Try it yourself. How is it that polar bears survived the thousand-year warmer periods you posit? They clearly have survived them, and they clearly won't survive a few more decades like the last few. A very short period on the thousand-year scale. The very obvious survival of polar bears as a distinct sub-species gives the lie to these long warm periods you conjure up from the deep and distant past.

What we are experiencing now is new. There is no refuge in the past.
 
The very obvious survival of polar bears as a distinct sub-species gives the lie to these long warm periods you conjure up from the deep and distant past.

What we are experiencing now is new. There is no refuge in the past.

There is no refuge in AGW belief, when to so belief you must deny several hundred scientific studies as you just have.

Better to just admit the error graciously and move forward.
 
Advances in the State of the Art of "Climate Science" since Post #826

Assertions by AGW believers
  1. But I am not expecting you to get it anymore...
  2. you disregard the calculations of the majority of scientists in favour of the calculations of whomever that might support your ideology, even if only apparently.
  3. Your problem with the other models is that they don't tell you what you want to hear.
  4. if the result of the model superficially seems to agree with you, you say "let the chips fall...".If not, models are worthless or scientists want to rule the world under a marxist ideology... got it.
  5. Does this IPCC of yours hide in your closet at night? Or is it hanging in the cornfield?
  6. stating that a Communist cabal plots far-left reforms and gargantuan taxes in the States after falsifying climate science by buying thousands of scientists... makes you sound alarmist
  7. Seeing you look sad and stranded on an ice-floe would be a blast but even then ...
  8. Contrarians habitually take refuge in a past that, unsurprisingly, doesn't reflect an artificial CO2 forcing by the planet's first industrialised species, which is certainly the main driver of climate change today
  9. you would admit no AGW until all the earth's ice has melted
  10. Both University and public libraries are guarded at gunpoint by the International Marxist Man in Black, and they don't allow anyone in
  11. The evidence is there. You just choose to not believe it.
  12. What we are experiencing now is new. There is no refuge in the past.
  13. You're making that up.
Assertions by skeptics
  1. Try science instead of dogma.
  2. Claims of AGW being the cause of Katrina are not worth responding to.
  3. There is no double bind. You are getting your audits for free. I wonder why that is disliked...
  4. Actual atmospheric experiments would help in clarifying areas of known uncertainty.
  5. What consensus science really is? Politics.
  6. The point of actual useful science like this is not to prove or disprove AGW, but to actually understand phenomena.
  7. Repeating the same errors over and over will not heal the broken hockey stick
  8. You took it seriously, went to the trouble to find research that rebutted the obvious logical errors, posted that, and were met by denial and disinformation.
  9. You will also find nothing in IPCC implying "tipping points".
  10. By-the-book AGW Strategy. 1. Run for the ICE! 2. Plead for the BEARS! 3. Reverently invoke the Authority of the Computer MODEL. Dodge facts and published articles in science.
  11. Mr Strawman, they will be "won" on real data: past, present, and future. Do you think it is a debate or something? This is science. It is only right when your hypothesis continualy makes accurate predictions that satisfy the data.
  12. There is no refuge in AGW belief, when to so belief you must deny several hundred scientific studies as you just have.
  13. In case you are wondering why the Warmers and Alarmists are not doing too well, it is simply because the state of understanding of the science in these areas is progressing.
  14. there is no consensus, get over it. There's no alarmism in responding to alarmism.
  15. 2007 may be the year AGW jumped the shark.
Unanswered Skeptics' questions​
  1. Why all the talk about catastrophic sea levels when the IPCC Holy Scriptures doesn't implicitly state it?
  2. Who is the big spender to influence public opinion? Oil companies, or greenwash?
  3. How about Australia? How are you guys doing a la Kyoto? Just state the numbers, please. Any plans to sequester carbon from your famous coal powerplants? Any plans of substance to comply with Kyoto down under, or just rhetoric? Nuclear plants? Any substantial projects at all? Please provide projected numbers in terms of how your country forecasts reaching any reduction in CO2 emissions.
  4. There are some follow on papers to key pieces of work in the AGW hypothesis which are obfuscated or prevented by the active withholding of data and methods. Do you dispute that?
  5. You have a group of people trying to get trillions of dollars in taxes, fees and fines due to the alleged effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in many critical cases, they won't let us see their data or methods. ... Do you dispute that?
  6. If the facts change, I'm going to change my opinion. As for you??
 
Unique, repeating the same errors over and over will not heal the broken hockey stick. I doubt you've ever read the details of it.
There's been a lot of research since the infamous hockey stick was released. They all tell us that the warming we're seeing right now is unprecedented.
2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.
What does this mean? That it was not warmer globally, but only in those parts of the world?
 
Yes, and I can write, comprehend, and think. I could even talk down to you, if I saw any point in it. Mostly what I do is respond to other people's posts.

Try it yourself. How is it that polar bears survived the thousand-year warmer periods you posit? They clearly have survived them, and they clearly won't survive a few more decades like the last few. A very short period on the thousand-year scale. The very obvious survival of polar bears as a distinct sub-species gives the lie to these long warm periods you conjure up from the deep and distant past.

What we are experiencing now is new. There is no refuge in the past.

You consider 70 years ago the deep and distant past? 1000 years? 2000 years?

They clearly have survived them, and they clearly won't survive a few more decades like the last few.
Nothing like good old fashioned logical fallacy.
 
Links for posts 826-944

AUP
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/sceinteficelly-litarete.html
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2540.htm
[/FONT]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...nsitysst-link/
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s1777013.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html

BobK
Land
Ocean
Combined
It seems Hansen has finally released his code. Link

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]David Rodale
[/FONT]It could also be entirely false, as a sea-level expert explains.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Fals...ion_of_CO2.pdf
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/p...707.1161v2.pdf
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea...-may012007.pdf
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staf...Stoffa_JCL.pdf
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/269.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im.../consensus.pdf


HghrSymmetry
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...t_low_ice.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20645362/

MH
www.climateaudit.org unthreaded #19 ...
read the rest here
FIVE-THOUSAND YEARS OF HURRICANES
Singer, Fred 2007 Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycle
How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
Television interview (and transcript) 10 minute video of Singer and Avery
yet another Climateaudit thread,
Quoting from Monckton's excellent criticism of Oreskes
http://downloads.heartland.org/tsonis_GRL07.pdf
full text draft of the pdf here http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/me...te-shifts.html
They are at each other directly now with the insults and charges flying.
Basketball Referees and Single Points of Failure
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...ball_refe.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Audit

Rob Lister
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2022#more-2022

Rockoon
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students...tionBudget.pdf

Safekeeper
NOAA Research:
Nature:

More here.
 
There's been a lot of research since the infamous hockey stick was released. They all tell us that the warming we're seeing right now is unprecedented.
[qimg]http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png[/qimg]

What does this mean? That it was not warmer globally, but only in those parts of the world?

Please enlighten us since you didn't bother citing the source of the spaghetti graph.
 
  1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956
  2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762. doi:10.1029/1999GL900070 (pre-print)
  3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270 (data available from NCDC : [2])
  4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941. doi:10.1029/2000JD900617
  5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208
  6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
  7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
  8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
  9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
  10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046
  11. (black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [3] was used.
 
There's been a lot of research since the infamous hockey stick was released. They all tell us that the warming we're seeing right now is unprecedented.
http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

What does this mean? That it was not warmer globally, but only in those parts of the world?
This thread at climate audit may interest you. Your graph, right?
IPCC and the Briffa Deletions

By Steve McIntyre
I’ve posted on several occasions on the deletion of the “inconvenient” section of the Briffa reconstruction. Now that the review comments are online, I want to reprise this, just so you can understand the IPCC process a little better. This repeats some earlier material.
As an IPCC reviewer, I
Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading. (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-18)]
​
In response, IPCC section authors said:
Rejected though note divergence issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of
Briffa et al. series.
​
Once again, here’s what they were deleting and what they felt was “inappropriate” to show the public - the post-1960 decline in the Briffa index. (I’ve shown the IPCC TAR version here but the same deletion is made in AR4). By deleting the adverse segments, they enhance the rhetorical impression of the remaining series. Any mining promoter that did this would be in trouble with the securities commissions.
 
  1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run T


  1. Don't play games. Give the source for the chart! Are you afraid of something?

    I have seen the chart and data before. Nearly all are tree ring proxy data (Mann redux) and climate models.
 
Those... are the sources for the chart. All the creators of the chart did was feed the 11 sets of data into Excel and have it create a representation. The links I gave are the primary sources. It doesn't get more source-ish better than that.

But as you will, the secondary source is Wikipedia, who got it from Global Warming Art.
 
Could've sworn I put a reply in here:boggled:.

Yes. But the H2O emitted into the atmosphere goes back out again - we have this funny natural phenomena called rain, so the vapor never stays in the atmosphere for long enough to cause warming. Co2, on the other hand, when released in too big numbers, stays up there for hundreds of years.

Yes, rain removes H2O from the atmosphere - but evaporation adds it to the atmosphere - the net result is that H2O is (currently) the dominant source of the greenhouse effect. Why would you want to downplay its significance?

The paper I linked to is the most favorable one I could find on the subject of CO2's importance (I was feeling generous), putting at about 50% of the significance of H2O. Other papers put CO2 at an order of magnitude less than H2O, or ignore H2O entirely.

The post I responded to was in error, yet the attitude the poster took was that he somehow saw the light when he was a young lad. pffft.

I took the time to correct him.
 
You would think so, and yet magically they keep quoting the oil executive, as though your link simply doesn't exist. Weird, dude.

Did you look at the link? Did you have your critical thinking cap on at the time?

Lets examine this link:

MYTH #0: Strawman fallacy - constructs an arguement that is easy to take down
MYTH #1: Srrawman fallacy - constructs an arguement that is easy to take down
MYTH #2: Strawman fallacy - constructs an arguement that is easy to take down
MYTH #3: Strawman fallacy - constructs an arguement that is easy to take down
MYTH #4: Strawman fallacy - constructs an arguement that is easy to take down

Throughout the text you find lots of other fallacies, including:

The spotlight fallacy
Poisoning the well
Hasty generalizations
Shifting the burden of proof

Wow.. what a great link... thanks for sharing it guys!!

pffft.

The MBH hockey stick claimed that the late 20th century exhibited unprecedented warmth in the last 1000 years. (Note that very little of the data used to create the stick can be used to examine warming rather than warmth)

This claim cannot be substantiated when using the same data correctly, rather than incorrectly.

It is possible to mine for data that does seem to substantiate the claim but thats cherry picking and you don't actualy get to do that in real science.

The data Mann used was quite extensive and if it were not for his mishandling of it, other scientists wouldnt be farming smaller sets of data for the same conclusion he had incorrectly drawn.
 
Not one of the article's rebutted points are strawmen. I don't understand how you get to that conclusion. In fact, Myth 3 is stated by you in the very post you call it a strawman:

They:
MYTH #3: The "Hockey Stick" studies claim that the 20th century on the whole is the warmest period of the past 1000 years.

You:

The MBH hockey stick claimed that the late 20th century exhibited unprecedented warmth in the last 1000 years.

The spotlight fallacy
Poisoning the well
Hasty generalizations
Shifting the burden of proof
Examples, please.

Yes, rain removes H2O from the atmosphere - but evaporation adds it to the atmosphere - the net result is that H2O is (currently) the dominant source of the greenhouse effect. Why would you want to downplay its significance?
No one ever claimed water vapor is not added to the atmosphere. But the amounts of water vapor added equals the amount removed. Co2, on the other hand, increase in amount over time, thus contributing to an increase in greenhouse gases and accelerating global warming.Co2 is significant because unlike all other greenhouse gases, it is not compensated for. Total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased by 35% thanks to our Co2 emissions.
 
Last edited:
When you go to a specialist, do you pick any specialist for a heart condition, or do you go to the heart specialist, or a oncologist? Would you listen to the heart surgeon's advice, or would you prefer to hear what the oncologist has to say if you don't like what the heart surgeon is telling you? That's not poisoning the well, that's telling you when you have a heart problem, you want to be pretty clear what you are doing when you prefer the advice of the oncologist. This is the age of specialisation, it's a simple fact due to the limits of the human mind to cope with the massive amounts of information needed to be able to specialise in one area of knowledge.

The "Myths" are pretty well what I read all the time, Realclimate appears to have heard them just the same way I did. The IPCC is wrong, since the "Hockey Stick" is broken is a very common attitude. The "Hockey Stick" is purely the work of Mann et al, there are apparently no other attempts at climate reconstruction.

David Rodal said

Unique, repeating the same errors over and over will not heal the broken hockey stick. I doubt you've ever read the details of it.
That's pretty well covered by the Realclimate rebuttal, they aren't attacking strawmen.

Soon et al are mentioned specifically.

(1) In drawing conclusions regarding past regional temperature changes from proxy records, it is essential to assess proxy data for actual sensitivity to past temperature variability. In some cases (Soon and Baliunas, 2003, Soon et al, 2003) a global 'warm anomaly' has been defined for any period during which various regions appear to indicate climate anomalies that can be classified as being either 'warm', 'wet', or 'dry' relative to '20th century' conditions. Such a criterion could be used to define any period of climate as 'warm' or 'cold', and thus cannot meaningfully characterize past large-scale surface temperature changes.
(2) It is essential to distinguish (e.g. by compositing or otherwise assimilating different proxy information in a consistent manner—e.g., Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998, 1999; Briffa et al., 2001) between regional temperature changes and changes in global or hemispheric mean temperature. Specific periods of cold and warmth differ from region to region over the globe (see Jones and Mann, 2004), as changes in atmospheric circulation over time exhibit a wave-like character, ensuring that certain regions tend to warm (due, for example, to a southerly flow in the Northern Hemisphere winter mid-latitudes) when other regions cool (due to the corresponding northerly flow that must occur elsewhere). Truly representative estimates of global or hemispheric average temperature must therefore average temperature changes over a sufficiently large number of distinct regions to average out such offsetting regional changes. The specification of a warm period, therefore requires that warm anomalies in different regions should be truly synchronous and not merely required to occur within a very broad interval in time, such as AD 800-1300 (as in Soon et al, 2003; Soon and Baliunas, 2003).
A pretty basic response, too, is the melting of permafrost that had been stable for the "MWP", without melting.

RC also make this point.

Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.
 
Last edited:
Yes, rain removes H2O from the atmosphere - but evaporation adds it to the atmosphere - the net result is that H2O is (currently) the dominant source of the greenhouse effect. Why would you want to downplay its significance?

The paper I linked to is the most favorable one I could find on the subject of CO2's importance (I was feeling generous), putting at about 50% of the significance of H2O. Other papers put CO2 at an order of magnitude less than H2O, or ignore H2O entirely.

The post I responded to was in error, yet the attitude the poster took was that he somehow saw the light when he was a young lad. pffft.

I took the time to correct him.

No one ever has played down it's significance, read the IPCC reports, they specify it's role quite clearly. What they point out is that it is not a 'forcing', that is, something that is causing change. It's the change that is of interest. H2O will act as a powerful feedback, however.
 
Not one of the article's rebutted points are strawmen.

Ok, then who made those rebutted points?

In fact, Myth 3 is stated by you in the very post you call it a strawman:

They:
MYTH #3: The "Hockey Stick" studies claim that the 20th century on the whole is the warmest period of the past 1000 years.

You:

The MBH hockey stick claimed that the late 20th century exhibited unprecedented warmth in the last 1000 years.

You dont see the difference? I didnt say 20th century, I said late 20th century .. just like they do in their "rebuttal"

Their strawman is that they are arguing against a specific "MYTH" about the entire 20th century .. if its not a strawman, then who made that claim?

Examples, please.

You will get examples when you have shown that you put enough effort into this to actualy find them.

You obviously couldnt spot the difference between two sentences, one with "20th century" and one with "late 20th century" and that tells me that you never read their rebuttal, because their "rebuttal" of this "myth" makes it quite clear that the removal of this word is what their "point" is all about.

(hook line and sinker... thats right.. hook line and sinker)
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom