The warmers are becoming skeptics

[Hallo Alfie]

I was sceptical from the start, since I could still remember the ice age scare, and could not see how CO2 could have a significant effect on the climate. I educated myself on the physical basis for the claims, and was convinced. You refuse to acknowledge there is a physical basis for AGW, and are not any sort of a sceptic until you do.

More lies AUP?
Seriously.

I have refused nothing. You might recall me say "I don't know" when it comes to the science, you might recall me saying that "the scientists are generally honest" and you might even reacll me acknowledging that "AGW may be 100%true. My skepticism is rooted in other areas.

Your belief is nothing more than that, belief. But you do truly believe. You are no more a climate scientist than I, and it is 'only they who truly understand'.

So how can you be so sure?
And how can you continue to ignore the rising torrent of controversy that emerges?

Something stinks and the stench is getting stronger.

 

[a_unique_person]

More lies AUP?
Seriously.

I have refused nothing. You might recall me say "I don't know" when it comes to the science, you might recall me saying that "the scientists are generally honest" and you might even reacll me acknowledging that "AGW may be 100%true. My skepticism is rooted in other areas.

Your belief is nothing more than that, belief. But you do truly believe. You are no more a climate scientist than I, and it is 'only they who truly understand'.

There is a physical basis, CO2 is a GHG, it's concentration is increasing in the atmosphere significantly. I know enough science to understand that energy is absorbed and re-emitted in a random direction. (You don't have to be Einstein to understand that.) That is evidence, that is not being a 'true believe'. The controversy is manufactured by deniers. The current scientists are no better or worse than scientists through history, the scientific method was created to deal with the fact that scientists are human and far from perfect. All you are interested in is petty politics.

So how can you be so sure?
And how can you continue to ignore the rising torrent of controversy that emerges?

Something stinks and the stench is getting stronger.

I can be as sure as I am that F=MA.

The "stench" is a diversion into the pigpen that deniers have created.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

There is a physical basis, CO2 is a GHG, it's concentration is increasing in the atmosphere significantly. I know enough science to understand that energy is absorbed and re-emitted in a random direction. (You don't have to be Einstein to understand that.) That is evidence, that is not being a 'true believe'. The controversy is manufactured by deniers. The current scientists are no better or worse than scientists through history, the scientific method was created to deal with the fact that scientists are human and far from perfect. All you are interested in is petty politics.


I can be as sure as I am that F=MA.

The "stench" is a diversion into the pigpen that deniers have created.

OK, so you know enough to be certain that AGW is real. Others don't yet have that 'knowledge' as yet, including better qualified experts than you (or I).

The controversy isn't manufactured by deniers btw. The controversies are created by the warmers, some scientists, the zealous followers and players. They include lies, short cuts, ego, money, prestige, politics, etc etc. These are then fanned by the deniers and fair enough too.
Don Chipp once said they needed to "keep the bastards honest". You would prefer no checks and balances? Peer review does not check the IPCC reports, for example.

 

[a_unique_person]

OK, so you know enough to be certain that AGW is real. Others don't yet have that 'knowledge' as yet, including better qualified experts than you (or I).

The controversy isn't manufactured by deniers btw. The controversies are created by the warmers, some scientists, the zealous followers and players. They include lies, short cuts, ego, money, prestige, politics, etc etc. These are then fanned by the deniers and fair enough too.
Don Chipp once said they needed to "keep the bastards honest". You would prefer no checks and balances? Peer review does not check the IPCC reports, for example.

Science has it's own, well developed and proven system of checks and balances. They aren't stupid. It is specifically designed to address the issue of human weakness.

All the experts say AGW is real, they just argue the degree of warming.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Science has it's own, well developed and proven system of checks and balances. They aren't stupid. It is specifically designed to address the issue of human weakness.

Really?

I will just refer you to one expert as per the OP:

"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering."

...plain statistical incompetence.."

"And these guys call the other side "deniers"."

"The scientists have let them down, and made the anti-science crowd look wise. That is outrageous."

"... (if) this is how science is done in the real world. If I were a scientist, I would resent that."

'Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot.'

All the experts say AGW is real, they just argue the degree of warming.

Really? No doubt you have a list of "all the experts". Perhaps you can get the list from a warmer porn site, or maybe the IPCC.

And because the science is settled, this is obviously the reason there is no debate.

Please tell me when you will start to smell the stink?

 

[a_unique_person]

Really?

I will just refer you to one expert as per the OP:

An expert opinion piece writer?

Really? No doubt you have a list of "all the experts". Perhaps you can get the list from a warmer porn site, or maybe the IPCC.

Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, all agree that AGW is real, due to CO2 as a GHG. They just doubt that it will cause anything more than about a 1C temperature rise. The deniers refuse to even accept that.

And because the science is settled, this is obviously the reason there is no debate.

Please tell me when you will start to smell the stink?

I see the evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

From what I understand, the 'lie' was pointed out before publication and it was decided leaving it in was a 'good idea'. Only when they were called on it did they retract.

You are correct however that this one instance of one person should not taint the whole IPCC.

However, when we have a string of such events, political (and/or financial) interests being used as valid reasons for inclusion, senior members' outside interests and integrity being questioned, a lack of objective neutrality of the body etc etc.

you haven't really demonstrated that at all, you have asserted it, what string are you referencing, how many people out of how many.

You do know that this is an issue that pervades all science? maybe not, retration and fraud are not common but they do occur.

One must begin to become skepical to a point. When will you?

When yo show me that the majority of the evidence is in doubt.

And in this one sentence we see the total acceptance and justification of contradiction and insult.

You are not sceptical of the material you present here?

You do not research things and then seem to have trouble defending them,

Now you do say that you meant to put a quation mark in your comment and i accept that. But again i want to resort to ad homs and I am refraining.

Agreed, but how does that make me a liar?

teh same way it makes the IPCC a liar.

Not true, I am not standing by your interpretation of my words. At any rate, I think I have explained both sides (yours and mine). If you wish to continue with trivialities on my language (or misuse thereof) you can go it alone from here.

The issue is AA Alfie that you make claims that you can not substantiate. Part of the process requires more than posting an article from the Daily Mail and then saying 'just asking', you seem to only want to understand the material that counter the idea of global warming.

Do you read or accept the other material?
Why or why not?

You are the one making a 'lie' out a retraction so your term of trivial could be used against you claim of the 'lie'.

 

[Dancing David]

Really?

I will just refer you to one expert as per the OP:






Really? No doubt you have a list of "all the experts". Perhaps you can get the list from a warmer porn site, or maybe the IPCC.

And because the science is settled, this is obviously the reason there is no debate.

Please tell me when you will start to smell the stink?

I notice that again you have slipped into political spin rhetoric as opposed to actual discussion, we can present reams of evidence.

Will you read it or try to understand it or just dismiss it as 'warmer porn'?

I too was one who questioned the IPCC report , until I actually started to read it and then the data that it was based upon. There is an awful lot of very good science in the material, yes there was the east Anglia thing and now the Himaaian glacier flub, but two boo boos do not a theory destroy.


So if I present you with the lake sedimentary data that shows an increasing warming trend, what then?

 

[BeAChooser]

From the interview with Phil Jones mentioned in post #143 and #145:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

LOL! First of all, Jones' argument against accepting the possibility that there was global medieval warming equal to what is claimed now is the same one that could be used to refute Jones' positions about current warming. It's a fact that the global warming advocates have consistently dismissed large regions of the world where warming hasn't been occurring recently. Just look at America and Europe right now … record snowfalls and lower temperatures. All ignored. And it turns out that even Jones' now admits that his global records show that global warming has not been occurring during this very time.

Second, there is data showing Medieval warming in other parts of the world. You can't just dismiss this data out of hand because it is inconvenient. This, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period , lists various studies that indicate the Medieval warming was global. It notes a study indicating that Africa had a drier climate during the Medieval period and another (using stalagmites) that indicates New Zealand saw a warmer period between AD 1050 - 1400. It also cites this from New Zealand

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CookPalmer.pdf

The occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the Southern Hemisphere is uncertain because of the paucity of well-dated, high-resolution paleo-temperature records covering the past 1,000 years. We describe a new tree-ring reconstruction of Austral summer temperatures from the South Island of New Zealand, covering the past 1,100 years. This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP.

this from Antarctica

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/qr/2002/00000058/00000003/art02371

Core A9-EB2 from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, consists of pelagic (diatom ooze-clay couplets and bioturbated diatom ooze) and hemipelagic (bioturbated mud) sediments interbedded with turbidites (homogeneous mud and silt–clay couplets). … snip … The late Holocene records clearly identify Neoglacial events of the Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP).

and this from Japan

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rbkqea1dxt1ca03v/

Limnological features and sediment characteristics were studied in Lake Nakatsuna, a mesotrophic lake in central Japan. … snip … In an attempt to reconstruct paleoclimatic changes around the lake, a sediment core taken from the lake center spanning the past 1300 years was analyzed for its organic and inorganic contents. Climatic influences were examined on the variation of total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and sand contents. … snip … The sediment record from AD 900 to 1200 indicates hot summers and warm winters with less snow accumulation, whereas the record from AD 1200 to 1950 is characterized by high variation of temperature, with three cool phases from AD 1300 to 1470, 1700 to 1760, and 1850 to 1950. The warm period from AD 900 to 1200 corresponds well to the Medieval Warm Period, and the second and third cool phases are related to the Little Ice Age.

Here's a chart that shows data from many other parts of the world that seem to verify that Medieval warming was indeed global in nature. You can click on the individual items to see more detail.

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

And here are other sources to consider:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c012875f4b6d0970c-pi "The Bahamian Medieval Warming"

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contentHandler.cfm?id=1244 "University of Maine researcher and three members of her team spent the month of January picking through the beaches between McMurdo Sound and Terra Nova Bay looking for the remains of long-dead southern elephant seals. Hall believes the presence of colonies along Victoria Land as recently as a thousand years ago indicate the region was warmer than it is today. … snip … The most recent warming period occurred between 1,000 and 2,500 years ago, Hall noted. “We have pretty good evidence of that time period,” she said.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/11/seals-hair-skins-hockey-stick/

Hall et al. date the material found on the Victoria Land Coast (VLC) of Antarctica and find “The period between 1,100 and 2,300 14C yr B.P., marked by significant expansion of elephant seal colonies and a disappearance of Adélie penguins, represents the greatest sea-ice decline (and probably the warmest ocean and air temperatures) in the Ross Sea in the last 6,000 yr. This was followed by an increase in sea ice and the development of land-fast ice ≈1,000 yr ago on the VLC, which we propose led to the abandonment of seal colonies.

It should be clear to all that Jones is now just spinning to avoid stating what is becoming more and more obvious to all. That global warming has been a scam by people like him and that Al Gore is making big bucks off that scam, while the left has been using it for political gain.

 

[lomiller]

All the experts say AGW is real, they just argue the degree of warming.

Even that isn't debated much. Most of the current debate centers around regional effects.

If the 2-4.5 deg warming per doubling of CO2 reported by the IPCC is challanged in the literature, it seems more likely to be that the person is arguing that number is too low.

 

[lomiller]

It's a fact that the global warming advocates have consistently dismissed large regions of the world where warming hasn't been occurring recently.

On the contrary Joens/HadCRU omits the Artic which shows some of the fastest warming on the planet. North America/Europe are fully represented when it’s reported that 2009 was the second warmest year on record.

Just look at America and Europe right now … record snowfalls..

Snow is more often associated with warmer global temperatures then cold. Any precipitation, snowfall included, requires evaporation which comes with warm temperatures not cold. Indeed cold air can’t even hold the required moisture to create major precipitation events.

Second, there is data showing Medieval warming in other parts of the world.

While it’s global in nature the MWP isn’t always reflected as temperature change. No climate reconstruction shows global MWP temperature changes being more then a 0.7 deg change over several hundred years. Most show less then that.

IOW the MWP shows up quite distinctly in all the published, it’s just much smaller then the ideologues wish it to be.

 

[mhaze]

...Snow is more often associated with warmer global temperatures then cold. Any precipitation, snowfall included, requires evaporation which comes with warm temperatures not cold.....

Nope. Not unless you can show evidence. Your statement has partial validity if one changes it thus:

"Snow is more often associated with warmer regional temperatures than cold".

Partial validity only, because of the influence of existing nearby water, or it's lack, and the critical importance of altitude, and of variations in altitude or the lack of them.

 

[BenBurch]

Even that isn't debated much. Most of the current debate centers around regional effects.

If the 2-4.5 deg warming per doubling of CO2 reported by the IPCC is challanged in the literature, it seems more likely to be that the person is arguing that number is too low.

I'm pretty sure it is too low. By perhaps 2 degrees.

 

[BeAChooser]

Snow is more often associated with warmer global temperatures then cold.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/02/19/12952876.html

Great global warming snow job

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/time_to_turn_up_the_heat_on_th.html

February 21, 2010

Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists

At one time some would call them "deniers." The more generous called them "skeptics." But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane. Yes, the climate has certainly changed.

… snip …

First there was Climategate, with emails showing that "scientists" had schemed to suppress inconvenient truths and had refused to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. Then came the admission that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was dead wrong about Himalayan ice melt. And other shoes have dropped as well. Remember the IPCC warning that climate change could cause the loss of 40 percent of the Amazon Rainforest? It was based on a report by an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund, that misrepresented a study. Then we learned of other notable IPCC sources as well, such as a student's Master's dissertation and a sporting magazine.

Next, notorious University of East Anglia head and central Climategate figure Phil Jones may not yet be starting to sing, but he is singing a different tune. He now admits that the Medieval Warm Period might have been toastier than today, meaning that current temperatures "would not be unprecedented." … snip … Jones also admits that there has been no "statistically significant" warming since 1995, something that, when asserted mere months ago, got one branded a flat-earther. In addition, he now says that the Gorelesque view that "The debate is over" is "not my view." Interestingly, though, he never made this known until he was caught green-handed.

Then we heard how the 6000 weather stations that collected temperature data had mysteriously been reduced to 1500 and that those eliminated just happened to be in cooler regions. As for examples of those used, journalist Wesley Pruden writes, "Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners." That's almost as bad as positioning one in front of Al Gore's mouth.

But, hey, while the Chicken Little Climateers had a tough sell, they had the Government-Media-Academia-Entertainment Axis on their side and a tight little theory. If it got warmer, it was man's fault. If it got cooler, it was man's fault. If it got warmer in places it was cooler and cooler in places it was warmer, it was man's fault. If the weather became more volatile, it was man's fault.

… snip …

Let us be clear on the gravity of the Climateers' crime: They have used billions of our tax money to fund fraudulent science. And why?

For the purposes of promoting policies that would steal billions more.

And what happens now? Do they just get to say "Oops" and slink away?

A very good question. Indeed.

 

[tyr_13]

No, a terrible question based on a false premise. There are no emails showing that scientists had schemed to suppress 'inconvenient truths'. None. The ones always cited show the exact opposite because the same information was put forth in their own papers as well. If publishing papers with that exact information is seen as 'suppression' then the conversation has nowhere to go, save perhaps to a mental health professional.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/02/19/12952876.html

This bit is funny..

So, just to review the warmist perspective:

(1) North of the 49th parallel **— global warming explains the lack of snow.

(2) South of the 49th parallel — global warming explains the snow.

Plus:

(1) Warmists can use single weather events to prove global warming.

(2) Opponents can’t use single weather events to disprove global warming.

Does it not occur to warmists that stuff like this is one of the reasons more and more people are starting to think of them as the intellectual heirs of Chicken Little?

My bold. Sums up the 'migration' and the thrust of this thread humourously.

 

[lomiller]

Nope. Not unless you can show evidence.

Which part of that are you asking for more evidence on? That more precipitation requites more evaporation? That evaporation is greater in warm temperatures then in cold?

 

[lomiller]

A very good question. Indeed.

So you are just asking questions?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So you are just asking questions?

Lets not go there.