Global warming

[Schneibster]

I ask a second time: who the hell are you?

 

[mhaze]

Argument by award show? Al Gore and the IPCC just won the Nobel Peace Prize didn't they?

Umm, yes. But you see, these awards were for "Best Science Blogs". So even if you delete the word "Blog", Gore would not qualify, and the IPCC, by virtue of being grouped with Gore in that award, is correspondingly degraded. Speaking of which, not all wanted that prize -

From an editorial in the WSJ, written as he rejects his fractional portion of the "peace prize", John Christy writes -

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story....

Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

...I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. ....

....Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

.....Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.
​

 

[Schneibster]

And a third time: who the hell are you? What are you hoping to accomplish here? Why do you keep presenting fake science over and over, and why are you using rhetorical tricks instead of talking plainly about it if it's not fake science?

 

[David Rodale]

Don't presume to know what I do or do not understand, DR... Your record in this thread makes you the least suited for it.



Your concern over my productivity is touching... Does it have anything to do with the fact that my graphs keep showing that you're wrong?

And I see a pattern here also. Mhaze tells me to look into blogs, you tell me to look into El Niño, but none of you feels like actually discussing the shift of temperatures in this decade...



Yes you did, repeatedly...



So trying to shift the goalposts again, are we? Where was your preocupation with the heat content of the oceans when you started posting your global atmosphere temperature anomaly graphs? Shown to be wrong, you now take refuge on a different metric. Ok, link to the database, so that I can use my time in more productive ways...

BTW your figures have no attribution, which is bad form. And you didn't explain us what you think they tell, anyhow. I guess you think they back up your argument.



It does? Why don't you show that connection? All you have are vague assertions.

The Lyman paper was not official until October 26, and posted October 31. Would it be wise to quote the former versions which were erroneous? I could only imagine the howling now.

While you were busy trying to find every last .01 degree of warming, I was waiting for the Lyman update. Truth is, it's not warming just as I proposed. Get over it, you were snookered. If you want to argue his findings, that's great, maybe it is still wrong. However, there's nothing to indicate a positive move, so what is the likelihood the oceans have warmed since one year ago?

Maybe you should get your information from various sources rather than the "CO2 is the center of the universe" dogma. Pielke repeatedly discussed OHC right up until the last day before retiring his blog in September.

BTW, NOAA predictions for 2007 hurricane season in August. How can consensus be wrong (again)?:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml

NOAA is predicting a very high likelihood (85% chance) of an above-normal 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, a 10% chance of a near-normal season, and only a 5% chance of a below-normal season, according to a consensus of scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center, National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Research Division, and Hydrometeorological Prediction Center.

 

[mhaze]

And a third time: who the hell are you? What are you hoping to accomplish here? Why do you keep presenting fake science over and over, and why are you using rhetorical tricks instead of talking plainly about it if it's not fake science?

Hi Schneib. Sorry, I have missed a number of your posts. You have a bad habit of reverting into troll mode, and I just put you on the ignore list at those times.

Are you civil again now? If so, let me help you out a bit. You'd like to see some fake science, right? I've got some for you.

Here it is. This was posted by UC at climateaudit. UC's blog is pretty interesting, by the way.

Now, let me explain what this is. This chart comes from Mann et al 1998 algorithm which as you are aware produced the famous hockey stick of global warming. What you are looking at here is solar energy plugged into the same algorithm.

Bingo! Another Hockey Stick. How about that. Any data series you pick, plug it into Mann's formula, and you get a hockey stick.



UC posted the following interesting figure on Unthreaded as follows:

BTW, got interesting result when I replaced Temperature PCs with solar in MBH98 algorithm. Similar RE values as in the original, and R2 goes down in the verification. I’d try this with 1980-present data, but the proxies are not yet updated.
​

Ooopss. I guess the fake science presented here was AGW Warmer Science, huh? Sorry about that. I'll try again. I'm sure I can find some fake GW-Skeptic science.

 

[Schneibster]

Who are you, and why are you posting here? You're posting fake science, and the proof it is fake is that you're supporting it with rhetoric and denial. Why bother to post fake science on a skeptical forum, and why do you think anyone will fail to see that you're using rhetoric? If all you have is propaganda, why don't you go post it somewhere else where it's more likely to work?

 

[fsol]

Umm, yes. But you see, these awards were for "Best Science Blogs". So even if you delete the word "Blog", Gore would not qualify, and the IPCC, by virtue of being grouped with Gore in that award, is correspondingly degraded.

Hey if I just remove the word "creation," presto! An encyclopedia of science!

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

Amazing.

Of course none of that has any bearing on why some blog or other being nominated for a popularity contest has any bearing on the discussion.

Speaking of which, not all wanted that prize -

From an editorial in the WSJ, written as he rejects his fractional portion of the "peace prize", John Christy writes -

Oh goody, an editorial. How very scientific.

That's this Christy right?

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

This Synthesis and Assessment Product is an important revision to the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S. National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved. Nevertheless, the most recent observational and model evidence has increased confidence in our understanding of observed climatic changes and their causes.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

 

[David Rodale]

Hey if I just remove the word "creation," presto! An encyclopedia of science!

http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

Amazing.

Of course none of that has any bearing on why some blog or other being nominated for a popularity contest has any bearing on the discussion.

Oh goody, an editorial. How very scientific.

That's this Christy right?

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Which AGW blog talking points did you get that from? That is not Christy's quote. Very disingenuous of you. It would be akin to saying because Steve McIntyre was an expert reviewer for IPCC that he agreed with the Mann hockey stick.

Can't you folks be objective and honest in anything you post?

A history and assessment by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. who was a lead author of CCSP and resigned due to the same chicanery as IPCC; both corrupt and politically charged bodies.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/index.php?s=Temperature+Trends+in+the+Lower&submit=Search

 

[Schneibster]

Gee, looking at the list of authors, there he is, J. R. Christy, Univ. of AL in Huntsville.

From your link: "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville..."
Bold is my emphasis.

Did someone say something about "honest?" I thought I heard that, but there's an echo in here.

 

[mhaze]

Gee, looking at the list of authors, there he is, J. R. Christy, Univ. of AL in Huntsville.

From your link: "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville..."
Bold is my emphasis.

Did someone say something about "honest?" I thought I heard that, but there's an echo in here.

Is there a point that you are attempting to make, if so, what?

 

[mhaze]

That's this Christy right?

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Hmm....

Don't think you've got the whole story there.

Wasn't there a dissenting, minority report by Christy?

 

[Locri]

Is there a point that you are attempting to make, if so, what?

I'm pretty sure his point is that Christy's name is on the paper, yet DR was saying that the quote above wasn't from Christy.

I guess the assumption is, just because Christy's name is on the paper that he must agree to that quote. Judging by what I know of Christy and how he feels on the topic of AGW, I kind of wonder why his name is on the paper.

 

[Schneibster]

Who the hell are you, mhaze, and why are you posting here? This is a skeptical science forum, not a propaganda site. Your continual use of rhetorical tricks and fake science makes it obvious you have no interest in the truth; if you did, you'd be straightforward instead of playing rhetorical games, and the sources you cited would be peer-reviewed science. You'd answer scientific arguments with science, and admit when you were wrong, neither of which you have ever done here. I repeat, who are you and why are you here? What possible agenda could be served by posting fake science and using political rhetoric on a skeptical science forum?

I'm just going to keep asking that until you either answer, stop playing rhetorical games and posting fake science, or go away. I see no point in playing logic-chopping games with someone who so obviously abuses skepticism by posting fake science and attempting to support it with rhetoric. Anyone who sees what you write will see what I write and know your game. Do you think no one can see what's happening to kleinman, or what's happening on the nuclear energy thread? Equally well can they see it here. It's the same thing, no difference at all.

 

[mhaze]

At least CD understands what El Nino and El Nina are. Please look into the matter so you don't waste more time making graphs and apply your skills to more productive matters. I never said it has not warmed; it is not warming in the current decade and the latest ocean heat content numbers verify it. There would appear to be a connection to the low tropical storm activity as well. Nevertheless, it is true as of Sep07 we are at about at the same point as in Sep88, and dropping.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234703ba621b1ee.jpghttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234703ba9de0770.jpg

But your chart does not go up a little bit toward the right.
That's not fair.
Give Warmers at least something to clutch at.




Mine goes up a little bit since we just came out of a Little Ice Age.
Warmers can deny the Little Ice Age, and say that this chart shows BUNCHES OF WARMING!




SCARY! SCARY! SCARY!
Here is the hockey stick.



AGW sceptics
If climate is strongly determined by natural factors such as the Pacific decadal oscillation, then we are now seeing clearly the influence of those natural factors. Temperatures should stay about the same and go down.

AGW Warmers
If climate is strongly determined by man made factors such as CO2 and the greenhouse warming, then we should be seeing a greenhouse warming signal that overpowers the natural factors. Temperatures should show a steady rise for the next several decades.

 

[Pipirr]

Here it is. This was posted by UC at climateaudit. UC's blog is pretty interesting, by the way.

Now, let me explain what this is. This chart comes from Mann et al 1998 algorithm which as you are aware produced the famous hockey stick of global warming. What you are looking at here is solar energy plugged into the same algorithm.

Bingo! Another Hockey Stick. How about that. Any data series you pick, plug it into Mann's formula, and you get a hockey stick.

You can Bingo! all you want. A posting on climateaudit is not equivalent to a peer reviewed paper, nor to an assessment by the US National Academy of Sciences. I find it helps to try and keep these things in perspective. UC may have you convinced, but for me blog postings are pretty much at the bottom of the scale.

I presume UC's discovery is going to be submitted to a peer reviewed climate science journal? That hockey stick won't debunk itself, and climate scientists should be told how wrong they are. Get it through peer review, and I (and no doubt many others) may start to think that your accusations of ‘fake science’ have merit.

 

[Pipirr]

Well, that's a decent question. In the absence of help from him, we may have to do it.

I believe I've found a skeptical claim (Denier may be not a good word to use) which should be discussed, and for which the Warmers could contribute serious input to determining whether, in fact, the claim is bogus or not.

You don't like 'Denier', but it's acceptable to use 'Warmers'?

Personally, I wouldn't describe myself with either term. I'm no 'Warmer', whatever that is, but I'm more and more certain I'm not in the same camp as you either.

For one thing, I think peer review is bloody marvellous. Whereas for your camp, it's like kryptonite.

 

[mhaze]

You don't like 'Denier', but it's acceptable to use 'Warmers'?

Personally, I wouldn't describe myself with either term. I'm no 'Warmer', whatever that is, but I'm more and more certain I'm not in the same camp as you either.

For one thing, I think peer review is bloody marvellous. Whereas for your camp, it's like kryptonite.

UC didn't discover anything, it had been known for a long time that many data series, almost anything, put into that algorithm generated a hockey stick. As I recall, that was published by McIntyre.

UC just threw the solar data in as a joke.

I have no problem with peer review whatsoever.

 

[Locri]

You don't like 'Denier', but it's acceptable to use 'Warmers'?

Personally, I wouldn't describe myself with either term. I'm no 'Warmer', whatever that is, but I'm more and more certain I'm not in the same camp as you either.

For one thing, I think peer review is bloody marvellous. Whereas for your camp, it's like kryptonite.

I'm not really fond of the term "Denier" either... "Denier" gives the impression that a person is denying something that is true (must like 9/11 "truthers" call themselves that because it gives the impression that they are the truthful ones). I prefer the simplistic terms of AGW and Anti-AGW myself. It saves all the silly loaded terms from being thrown around.

Anyways, peer reviewed papers is what everyone here seems to want, right? Ok... have at them:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Pick a paper and let's get to work. According to this article, at least, these are all peer reviewed and published papers.

 

[Pipirr]

I'm not really fond of the term "Denier" either... "Denier" gives the impression that a person is denying something that is true (must like 9/11 "truthers" call themselves that because it gives the impression that they are the truthful ones). I prefer the simplistic terms of AGW and Anti-AGW myself. It saves all the silly loaded terms from being thrown around.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Anyways, peer reviewed papers is what everyone here seems to want, right? Ok... have at them:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Pick a paper and let's get to work. According to this article, at least, these are all peer reviewed and published papers.

Good idea. Anything catch your eye?

 

[mhaze]

I'm not really fond of the term "Denier" either... "Denier" gives the impression that a person is denying something that is true (must like 9/11 "truthers" call themselves that because it gives the impression that they are the truthful ones). I prefer the simplistic terms of AGW and Anti-AGW myself. It saves all the silly loaded terms from being thrown around.

Anyways, peer reviewed papers is what everyone here seems to want, right? Ok... have at them:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Pick a paper and let's get to work. According to this article, at least, these are all peer reviewed and published papers.

Here is the first one listed in Inhofe's commentary. Good work; very clever analysis.

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)
​