Did You Know? A Handy List of Facts That Show Why the Claim CO2 is Causing Warming/Climate Change Is Untenable
A list of scientific facts about CO2, anthropogenic global warming, and climate change showing how people are misinformed by the “official climate science” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The claim that CO2 is causing warming/climate change is the greatest deception in history. The IPCC makes the incredible case that
…past climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.
This means CO2 from human activities overrode the effects of the sun, the oceans, and the atmosphere, which is scientific nonsense.
- Greenhouse gases are a mere 0.4392 percent of total atmospheric gases.
- CO2 is only 0.039 percent of total atmospheric gases.
- CO2 is less than 4 percent of total greenhouse gases.
- Water vapor is 95 percent of total greenhouse gases.
- CO2 levels currently at 390 parts per million (ppm) lowest in 600 million years.
- Levels were as high as 9000 ppm over last 600 million years. Average levels for the last 300 million years is approximately 1200 ppm.
- In every record, temperature increases before CO2. In other words, CO2 is not causing temperature increases, contradicting the basic assumption of the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
- Even if CO2 is causing temperature, doubling or tripling only raises temperature by a very small amount. This is known as climate sensitivity. The IPCC invoked a positive feedback that doesn’t exist to overcome the problem.
- Carbon and CO2 are terms used interchangeably, but are completely different things. Carbon is an element, and CO2 is a gas.
- CO2 is essential to life on the planet. Reduce the levels and plants suffer. Plants are most efficient at approximately 1000-1200 ppm as research and use of those levels in greenhouses attest. Plants are malnourished at 390 ppm.
- Fewer plants means less oxygen; no plants means no oxygen and no life on Earth.
- IPCC define climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.” This makes human impact the primary purpose of the research, but you cannot determine that unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change.
- As a result, the IPCC only consider nine “radiative forcings”, but admit its “level of scientific understanding” is high in only two of them. Even that claim is incorrect; it is low and medium-low in the other seven.
- They estimate these cause 1.6 watts per square meter, which is much lower than most natural forcings.
- Global temperatures increased from 1990 on because they reduced the number of weather records used.
- All modern temperature records have been adjusted to lower the old temperatures, and thus increase the slope of the increase in temperature.
- The “hockey stick” graph rewrote history by erasing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. This was achieved by the false assumption that tree rings area measure of temperatures, and by inappropriate statistical methods and analysis.
- Current temperatures and weather patterns are well within long-term normal patterns.
- The IPCC does not make predictions – they make projections.
- Every projection to date has been wrong, well above the actual trend and in the wrong direction as cooling continues. They are wrong because their computer models have temperature increase with a CO2 increase, which doesn’t happen in reality.
- Global temperature has declined since at least 2000 while CO2 has increased. If the IPCC was correct and it is overriding all other mechanisms, the increase should not happen. This is why senior IPCC member Kevin Trenberth said in a leaked email of Wed, 14 Oct 2009, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
Plants are malnourished at 750 ppm! This screams that plants evolved to grow best under much higher levels of CO2. They did not do this out of anticipation of mankinds future use of fossil fuels. They did this out of a response to hundreds of millions of years of much higher CO2 levels that NEVER caused an irreversible tipping point.
Put these alarmists on a bus with the 911 truthers and send them on a one way trip outside my national borders. They both disgust me equally.
Here in the UK all of the environmentlalists, such as Caroline Lucas, Prince Charles, Attenborough and all the other knucleheads that want to live in a pre historic technology free society should be allowed to do so but with one provisio, don't force it on the rest of us that do.
Find yourselves an island where you can live like the animals you are and F**** right off there and leave the rest of us us alone, I guarantee that with the first bout of Diahorrea the scumbags will be clamouring to git back in here full of apologies.
Ho Ho Ho
theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/
and it should have been faced, and the greenhouse effect rejected by science, nearly 20 years ago. My analysis is the first proper one, correcting the false scientific dogma behind the greenhouse effect's continued acceptance (read both the article and the comments -- fundamentally, other scientists misuse the blackbody radiation Stefan-Boltzmann formula, and unquestioningly assume the atmosphere is heated from the ground up).
theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
and it should have been faced, and the greenhouse effect rejected by science, nearly 20 years ago. My analysis is the first proper one, correcting the false scientific dogma behind the greenhouse effect's continued acceptance (read both the article and the comments -- fundamentally, other scientists misuse the blackbody radiation Stefan-Boltzmann formula, and unquestioningly assume the atmosphere is heated from the ground up).
Due to the IPCC and their pet scientists misuse of the terminology I can no longer acknowledge "the greenhouse effect" with regards to CO2 but choose the phrase "atmospheric effect" likewise with regards to CO2 it is a "regulatory gas" not a "greenhouse gas".
I find no conflict there. CO2 in the atmosphere as we are beginning to understand it does appear to be an atmospheric regulator. By changing the terminology I can discuss it without any confusion with the garbage the IPCC has been spewing.
Seeing as they have completely skewed the perception of what the "greenhouse effect" is (and therefore what a "greenhouse gas" does) there is little choice I believe but to redefine them so they can be discussed without those connotations.
If this were not the case, then we'd surely have an enormous dilemma regarding our widespread use of graphite and the decorative application of diamonds on our women. At least we can be glad that carbon-copies are a thing of the past....yeah!
> per million (ppm) lowest in 600
> million years.
This is obviously false. They're 120 ppm higher than the 1750 level of about 270 ppm. Heck, they're higher than they were last year!
CO2 levels, like climate, are always in flux. We do not get upset because the Sun does not hover in the same spot of the sky.
I believe the main point being illustrated, is that the current epoch is one of historically low CO2 levels. We actually need more CO2 and not less.
What is worth noting about the relatively recent rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, is that they do not correspond with additional warming.
Bring on the CO2 and I will have more tomatoes and less watering in my garden!
> illustrated, is that the current epoch
> is one of historically low CO2 levels.
And this is relevant how? We don't live in earlier epochs, we live in this one, where a huge population depends on a finely tuned agricultural and hydrological system. We do not have centuries to adjust to new carbon and climate regimes, as the Earth does.
The Earth is doing just fine. In fact, the little creatures and plants are happy because ther is now more CO2 and life can flourish.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded
Temperatures are headed down.
Per the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending March 2011 was the 6th coldest March-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, March 2011 was 79th coldest March in the past 117 years.
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 2.9°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending March 2011, the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 12.9°F.
> relatively recent rise in atmospheric
> CO2 levels, is that they do
> not correspond with additional warming.
Climate science does not say that CO2 and warming move in immediate lock-step. The science recognizes that there are many additional factors besides CO2 that determine climate, and some chaos as well, but that in the long-term (decades) manmade CO2 is one of the stronger drivers of anomalous climate and so bound to have an effect. It certainly does not say that each year is going to be warmer than the last because CO2 levels increased that year. What's far more relevant is that the last decade was the warmest decade on record, and, even more than that, that the rate of change of temperature is relatively high.
> that too so what's your point?
That Ball claimed something that is obviously false.
Well gosh! Let's just sign that Cap & Trade bill then. Forget all the relevant facts and focus on one minor incorrect detail that does not change the overall picture.
Good job David!
Isn't odd that whwn none of the IPCC mdels get it right, I don't see David getting excited.
Gee David, how many blogs have you written on the failures of the IPCC?
What if I showed you at what point NOAA states the models must be wrong? Hmmm?
According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:
(cont'd below)
According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it's time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.
Now you really have something to write about!
And when you are done, please provide even one (of the 'hundreds') peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent climate changes.
> CO2 is only 0.039 percent of
> total atmospheric gases.
And yet this small amount is responsible for a warming of about 30 C, making the planet habitable. So it's hardly surprising that a 35% increase in base levels of CO2 would lead to another degree or two of warming. In fact, it would be scientifically surprising if it DIDN'T happen.
If you think CO2 alone does all that you really need help.
The ground surface is heated only by solar shortwave radiation. This heats the ground, which then radiates long wave IR back into the atmosphere. At the wavelengths where CO2 and water vapor are opaque, this IR is absorbed and heats the atmosphere. If CO2 increases, only the height at which this happens changes. This height is very close to the surface, on the order of 1 meter or less. Back radiation only happens if the air is warmer than the ground. At elevations above 1 meter, the atmosphere is in LTE and increased CO2 does nothing. At the TOA, increased CO2 can radiate to space, cooling the TOA. Increased CO2 warming is nothing but a mirage.
notrickszone.com/2011/02/11/is-co2-warming-a-mirage/
That's the biggest crock yet. Changes in pressure or distance from the sun would have far more impact.
I ignored "your point" because it is ignorant and based on your climate religion not science.
First you claim 30C, then you change the claim to 7C using such amazingly accurate quantification as "about 50%" or "about 20%" which you then try and further quantify by now claiming "7C".
If it's only "about 20%" then it can only be "about 7C" if one variable is approximate you cannot claim an exact from it.
The point is you don't know and neither do they. It is all based on approximations and guesswork.
That is inadequate for me to accept as a reason for the massive political and economic policy changes that seem to be the real goal of all of this.
Blackbody radiation and the greenhouse effect are 19th century physics. They're facts. Even hardcore climate skeptics like Fred Singer acknowledge that there is a GH effect and that CO2 is a GHG that warms the planet.
Really, who do you think you're fooling by denying science that is over 100 years old?
Blackbodies do not exist. It is a theoretical model to help explain radiative absorption. The Earth is not a blackbody and does not act like one.
David, welcome to the real world. We do not live in a world of theory. I know you wish we could, but it is not going to ever happen.
Let's deal with facts.
Fact#1 - There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here.
Fact#2 - Natural variability has altered climates greatly for 4.5 billion years.
Fact#3 - There IS NOT ONE PEER REVIEWED PAPER that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent climate changes.
Quit denying the facts, denier.
Learned that from your kind.
I believe it was amirlach (though it may have been Adam) that presented some information not long ago indicating how the blackbody theories had been applied incorrectly.
You see 100 years ago the science relied upon skeptics. That was the test.
Today rather than make the original data available and acknowledge other theories as plausible instead a smear campaign is created labeling anyone who disagrees with the mantra as a "denier".
That is not science, so until skepticism regains it's rightful place in science then you are not doing science.
Apparently your approach to science is the same as the church's was centuries ago.
I don't deny science, I deny your type of science, the science of a zealot. The science where you can claim who is and isn't a scientist, that sort of thing.
> rightful place in science then
> you are not doing science.
Baloney. Skepticism certainly has a place in science, but it's a matter of applying it intelligently, not blindly. There are things to be skeptical about -- Svensmark's hypothesis, string theory, proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis -- and there are things that have been proven and are accepted -- AGW, Newtonian mechanics, the health damages from smoking.
The time for skepticism is especially past in the environmental/policy arena; there are by now sufficient reasons to show why we should be addressing the problem instead of denying it even exists.
You didn't just type that, did you? That wa a joke right?
Because if any of the scientists whose opinions I value said anything like this...
"We need to get some broad based support,to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
I would be asking alot more questions than you are. But then I have no agenda to serve.
Hint: He's one of your buddies, not mine.
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
Yeah, just President of the UN Foundation. You know, the same organization that produced the garbage you keep spewing.
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Oh and she's just a government person, so how could that possibly apply to the 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'?
I'm sure they were just lying when they said these things.
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Hadley! Who's that? Right? They don't matter. Pshaw!
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
Oh, and look. The nice man who will write those models. Those two should get together!
Imagine the fun!
Of course, I've already learned that details and subtlety escape you.
So it's fiction. That's what I say and we now agree.
Quote:An insult from you is a badge of honor, and really quite precious hun.
Instead of majoring in the mighty science of 'Jouranlism', I only studied climatolgy and geology (et al) for 8 years. Silly me to even interrupt such a man of science as yourself.
A man who cannot even read graphs!
Or the Data hidden behind illegal FOIA request denials? Quote: Can't be proven or accepted without empirical evidence. So that's clearly a false statement.
A little hint David, Models are not data nor are they evidence. And models that are refuted by empirical observations are less than worthless.
One who claims to be a journalist might want to consider asking a few tough questions.
Like why has the UK MET Office with its massive budget, supercomputers and GCM's has been WTFPAWNED for the last six years by a lone Astropysicst with a laptop and a zany hairdoo?
Why claims of "settled science" rest on models, missing and or fudged data?
Why if they had credible evidence are they so reluctant to produce it or to let others examine and check the results?
Details! We want to see the Subtle Data details. As you are beginning to find out here that we won't blindly accept the word of those who avoid providing empirical evidence.
That's not a good enough reason for me.
But you are true to your journalism degree, biased and full of falsehoods. Seems that's all any of you journalists are good for anymore. Opinionated editorializing.
I asked David what he thinks about this statement...
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
and he responded thusly...
'Actually you haven't displayed one-millionth of Schneider's expertise. Ironically, his quote is exactly about people like you, and many Americans, who can't understand the science and the long-term consequences of our actions. What he is saying is that the only way to get people, and the media, to notice is not if scientists simply present their data and common sense projections, but only if they fight into the media space, which only responds to negative news and catastrophes. People named "Gator" only pay attention if the news interrupts plans for next week's beer bash and BBQ; otherwise they couldn't care less about the less fortunate and future generations. So keep quoting Schneider--the joke is on you.'
Yes folks, David defends liars and personally attacks those with valid questions, and logic. David hates logic and truth because they interfere with his agenda. That is why David thinks lying is OK as long as it is him or his guys doing the lying. Remember this whenever reading David's
postslies, he thinks it's OK so don't be offended.> The IPCC does not make predictions –
> they make projections.
Of course. Unless Ball can accurately foresee the exact population, economy, and energy usage of the future, he can't make predictions either. No one can.
Does any of you ranting produce even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent climate changes? No.
Does it even dispute the fact that sea levels are not rising? No.
CO2 warming is not a linear function David. For someone who has a site that devotes so much attention to this farce, I would think you would have discovered that by now.
The very fact that CO2 levels are increasing and temperatures are not shows CO2 is not a big player in our current climate.
Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability for recent climate changes.
> one peer reviewed paper that
> refutes natural variability as the
> cause of recent climate changes? No.
You must be kidding. There are hundreds of such papers, summarized in dozens of reports. Natural factors (solar, volcanic) simple are too small to cause the (relatively large, in historical terms) warming we're seeing now of about 0.15 C/decade.
Well then silly, if there are 'hundreds', why can you not provide even one?
Oh, and i see why you abandoned your website, looks lonely!
Because it's not up to me to do your homework for you. If you truly can't find one, you obviously are not interested in even knowing.
Your lamest reply yet!
Until the Lockwood paper that is.
So you really think that natural variability factors influencing climate have retreated in importance just due to the fact that humans are here? Let's here for the great Divinity of Man! Humanity has taken its rightful position of god of the world, holding sway over all natural processes on this planet.
That is just so nuts! You have obviously no idea of the power and momentum of nature. Consult of the history of this planet, the processes which shape its surfaces and continue to do so even today and into the future
Hear, hear!
It is the awesome power of the Earth that inspired and sent me to University 27 years ago to learn more. I'm still learning, and still in utter awe.
And your proof of this is where?
Been there, done that. Losers.
Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes or even quantifies natural variability as it pertains to our current climate.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here. You cannot show otherwise and must therfore quantify and/or rule out natuiral variability.
Basic logic. Duh.
If instead you want to really discuss and debate the issues, let me know.
Get a grip. Until you can show that there is even a problem, there is nothing more to discuss.
Chicken littles get old my friend. The warming stopped. I'm sorry it is inconvenient for your agenda/religion.
Still have not seen you upset about being lied to by modelers and the IPCC.
Time to put the steaks on!
> planet, the processes which shape
> its surfaces and continue to do so
> even today and into the future
Of course these factors are still present. But except for sudden, unexpected one-off events these factors cause relatively slow changes compared to what we're seeing in recent decades. Even the warming of 4-7 C after an glacial ice age period took about 5000 yrs or about 0.01 deg/decade. We're currently warming at a much faster rate of about 0.15 deg/decade.
Ummm, sorry. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here.
The warming of the late 1800's was identical. CO2 was not to blame then either.
> reviewed paper that refutes
> natural variability for recent climate
> changes.
M. Lockwood, and C. Fröhlich,
"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature,"
Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 463, 2447-2460 (2007)
That is a paper written using models and only gives impressions.
But feel free to try again!
And how do you propose that climate be calculated, other than through a model?
How about the geologic record and empirical data. I know, I know, that sounds crazy!
Especially when we know so much about the parameters of climate forcings... oh wait a minute...
The IPCC's Table 2.11 (2007) reveals, by the IPCC’s own admission, it has ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of 80 percent of all factors impacting climate.
OK, strike that. You are right anyway. Who cares that none of the models have been right so far, er, I mean none of our empirical observations have been correct!
> and empirical data. I know, I know,
> that sounds crazy!
And how exactly are these used to calculate future climate?
I cannot believe you asked such a dumb question. The past. Study natural variabilty.
Duh.
But how do you use that data to calculate the future climate, say, for the year 2100? Specifically.
Well for starters you ditch the CO2 nonsense, it never drove climate in the past, so why include it now?
Our current climate is well within the bounds of natural variability.
Duh.
Still itching to bet on last year's game I see!
The point when mans Co2 began to accumulate rapidly was 1942. At which point temperatures dropped for 30 years.
The warming prior to 1942 was not caused by man as it was warming before mans Co2 emmisions were increasing rapidly.
It warmed from 1910-1945, cooled from 1945-1979, warmed again from 1979-1998, If Co2 was causing warming it would have warmed from 1945-1979 not cooled.
There is no "Strong Connection" between Co2 and temperature. There is however a Strong Correlation between Solar and Temperature. www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/slide51.jpg
fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis-falsified/ Temperatures measured at Mauna Loa show no evidence of Co2 warming. Strangely they only use temperature data from the airport where the only thing getting bigger is the jet engines.
> is a low climate sensitivity.
No, it doesn't. See Hansen et al, "How sensitive is the world's climate?" Natl. Geog. Soc. Res. Exploration, 9, 142-158 (1993). Abstract:
"We estimate climate sensitivity from observed climate change on time scales ranging from the 100000-year periods of major ice ages to brief periods of cooling after major volcanic eruptions. The real-world data indicate that climate is very sensitive, equivalent to a warming of 3±1°C for doubled atmospheric CO2. Observed global warming of ~0.5°C in the past 140 years is consistent with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being the dominant climate-forcing in that period."
The warming of 0.5 degrees is only consistent with 3 C anthroprogenic greenhouse gas theory if you count all of the warming of the last 150 years as being caused by man. It clearly was not. It was warming at roughly the same rate since the little ice age, both before mans Co2 began to accelerate and remained the same after. Since the global temperature change since 1985 has been about 0.36ºC, this suggests a sensitivity for a CO2 doubling of a miniscule 0.24ºC.
Why if Co2 is driving temperatures does it appear that temperatures follow the sun and not Co2?
stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/shaviv-veizer-03.pdf
> any where near reality.
False. Hansen's B scenario from his 1988 prediction has been pretty good. See
www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jp
www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
And these predictions were made over 20 years ago. The science has advanced considerably since then, and computing power/model resolution certainly has.
Only if you believe Hansens numbers, which do not agree with any of the three satellites.
Three against one.
In 1986 Hansen told the MIami News that between 2001 and 2010 temperatures would rise 2-4.
In 1988 Hnasen predicted that by 2040 we would have a temperature rise of 5C.
In 1988 he also predicted that Manhattan would be underwater today.
He also falsely claims 2010 was the hottest year ever. Again, three satellites say he is lying.
Study of the systematic removal of cool biased weather staioins also makes him a crook.
I'm still waiting to see anything other than gullibity from you David.
They are NOT IN AGREEMENT.
www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.html
www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html
Get some glasses or a larger monitor!
January 13, 2011
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/
So GISS says their kid aint ugly? I'm convinced.
Let's go ask Bernie Madoff if he was wronged.
And can you explain this guy...
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
NOAA: is.gd/0EcmTz
David every single ice core shows this to be true, and if you had actually looked more closely at the graph presented, you would have seen it too. David all of the ice core data refute AGW not confirm it.
The models are not getting better, they have been proven wrong time and time and again. For example (and this is crucial to the theory of AGW) all of the models predicted that if GHG's were warming our planet, then the troposphere would be warming several times the surface rate. However real data has shown that this is not true.
I suggest that you read the following paper
'
www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Edouglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf
davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/05/fred-singers-lecture-at-portland-state.html
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate.
Nothing. At. All.
And can you explain this guy...
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
rankexploits.com/musings/2008/who-expects-a-tropical-tropospheric-hot-spot-from-any-and-all-sources-of-warming/
What amazes me is that you think professional scientists would somehow overlook such a claimed discrepancy.
Would this guy do that David?
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
You can't seriously be claiming that all of the data could have missed out.
The Soon and Baliunas paper was so obviously wrong that people didn't even bother to refute it in the literature. Aren't the resignation of a half-dozen editors enough for you?
Could this guy have anything to do with falsifying that?
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
David all Thorne and Santer did was use obselete data, and then simply stretch the error bars until they got the result that they wanted. Now David, if there was reason to believe that their is a huge cooling bias in the datasets, then the huge error estimates might be justified. However, nobody (santer and RC) has provided no credible evidence that tropospheric temp datasets are unreliable. Like I told you, they are the most reliable method of measuring temperature, and they have shown that there is no hot spot. It is not simply to do with bad data. I find it very hard to believe that after 30 years, all of them could have missed it.
David I also suggest you read these links here
joannenova.com.au/2008/10/not-found-the-hot-spot/
climateaudit.org/2008/10/16/santer-et-al-2008/
joannenova.com.au/2010/08/the-models-are-wrong-but-only-by-400/
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.2196.pdf
rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
Might I remind you that science is about scientific data, and checking things. Personal opinions have no basis in science.
Nor is the first scenario, temperature leading CO2, reassuring -- this is exactly one of the positive feedbacks that climate scientists warm against, and we're not at risk from it since we've started ourselves up the warming curve. In fact, there is already some evidence of CO2 outgassing from the oceans.
No David, this is what alarmists like this guy say...
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
David you don't understand. Yes, temperature causes CO2 to increase, but if CO2 had nothing to do with the temperature increase in the first place, then there is no reason to worry about increasing CO2.
I suggest that you read the following paper, which summarises CO2's role in detail, and finds that it is minor. And please don't simply dismiss it because you don't like it's author. Just read the paper and show where it's wrong.
www.cfa.harvard.edu/%7Ewsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon07-Nov8-PGEO-28n02_097-125-Soon.pdf
> the temperature increase in the
> first place, then there is no reason
> to worry about increasing CO2.
That's absolutely ridiculous. CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas. If you wanted to warm a planet, the very first thing you would do is consider injecting a large amount of CO2 into its atmosphere.
There is still nothing unudual or unprecedented about our climate.
Write about something else, your are wrong again.
And what about htis guy?
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
But that comes from people who actually observe reality not your models.
> agricultural engineers have
> OBSERVED (you know, real
> world, not models) that
> increasing the CO2 concentrations
> in a greenhouse caused
> temperature reductions?
I don't know. A plant greenhouse and the Earth are very different. You do realize, don't you, that the term "greenhouse effect" as used in climate science is just an analogy, and one that has long been criticized as being imprecise....
The term "regulatory gas" rather than "greenhouse gas" appears to be more accurate. "Atmospheric effect" would also appear to be more accurate.
However, with regards to AGW, claims of "greenhouse gases" and "greenhouse effects" conjures up images of hot, sweltering, humid environments and we all know how much the media, politicians (and apparently scientists as well these days) love to use scary or uncomfortable imagery to promote their agendas.
The term "regulatory gas" is even more highly charged, since CO2 or any other heat-trapping gas isn't regulated in any country that I know of. Certainly not in teh US. So such a term is extremely inaccurate.
David it is not 'absolutely ridiculous'. If CO2 was a strong greenhouse gas please explain why there was no acceleration in the temperature rise, after the CO2 started to increase? And could you also please explain why the temperature went down, whilst CO2 was still going up for a few hundred years? David I think that it is plain obvious you have not read the paper I provided. Am I right?
There is absolutely nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate. Why are you alleging a problem when none exists?
Anf can ypu please explain this guy...
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
The ratio of C12/C13 is not so cut and dried as you might think. chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
An interesting point raised was "If human CO2 dropped dramatically during the great depression, where is the signature in the record?"
"Even though such transitory influences as day and night or seasonal variations in photosynthesis cause clearly visible swings in the curve, the 30 percent drop between 1929 and 1932 caused not a ripple. Empirical scientific evidence that the human contribution is in fact less than a fart in a hurricane."
As for the "Overwhelming Scientific Concensus" i assume your refering to the 76 Self selected "Climate Scientists"?
The Co2 that is radioactive is C14, with a half life of 5000 years. This is not present in Fossil Fuels as the age of it means all the C14 would have decayed long ago. C14 is produced in the upper atmosphere.
Volcanos and Forests also produce C12 and C13 same as "Fossil" fuels.
wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/ "Significantly, note that the ratio of C13 variability to CO2 variability is EXACTLY THE SAME as that seen in the trends!
BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??"
31,478 scientests say CO2 is not an issue. More than 35,000 workd wide also say that CO2 will not cause the problems being presented. Many that claim that CO2 is a problem, just recycle the same data an put their names to the presentation.
There are a few additional facts about CO2 that arent being stated. I will present them in a report I am soon going to publish.
This article explains the processes that most ignore to state, when presenting that CO2 - namely anthropogenic CO2 - is a problem. Why is it only man made CO2 is a problem??
www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9016-the-global-warmingclimate-change-paradox-why-co2-has-not-is-not-nor-will-not-be-an-issue
Above the natural emission of a trillion tons per year, the planet has emitted more than twice the volume and CO2 levels did not rise as it is claimed that it will. When Earth was 20 degrees warmer for hundreds of thousands of years, life thrived, not suffered.
Niether you nor NOAA apparently knows how to read a graph! Colorblind?
Temperature change (blue) and carbon dioxide change (red)
Enlarge the graph and try again. The blue line clearly rises and peaks before the red. Especially the closer you get to modern times.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
> peaks before the red.
Again, do your homework, because this has been debunked many times. Sometimes temperature leads CO2 and sometimes CO2 leads temperature--it depends on the details. Especially, CO2 leads temperature when it comes from an outside source, as in (perhaps) a comet as during the PETM, or, as now, by man's artificially injecting it into the atmosphere. In that case CO2 certainly does lead temperature.
Nor is the first scenario, temperature leading CO2, reassuring -- this is exactly one of the positive feedbacks that climate scientists warm against, and we're not at risk from it since we've started ourselves up the warming curve. In fact, there is already some evidence of CO2 outgassing from the oceans.
Well then at least explain this guy...
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Science isn't about goals and agendas, it is about facts, and use of the above tactics to "reach the masses" is an abandonment of the scientific process.
Looks like the joke is in your lap once again.
How many of Schneider's books and papers have you read, Robert?
Problem is we just cannot know. We have established the fact that Davis thinks it is OK to lie about AGW.
Sorry David, you now have to prove you can read! Known liar and all.
And I quote you:
Quote:Your own words, past tense, he WAS a scientist. When his "frustrations" prompted him to take an activist approach he ceased to be one.
Now being he is an activist masquerading as a scientist why would I read his work? Anything he has said or will say will be repeated as gospel by your ilk so I'll hear it eventually.
Maybe if he wrote about programming I'd care, instead he makes his bed with the IPCC so his opinions mean nothing to me.
If we have started ourselves up the "Warming Curve" why has it not been warming for over 16 years?
Meanwhile the science has moved on. I knew the Shaviv and Veizer 2003 paper was not the latest, but it is interesting to see the progression of the debate. Soon to be released, even newer work based on this line of research with the novel idea of "having data available" so others can replicate or falsify the results. A Concept completely new to "Climate Science" but that is known to other scientists as a testable and falsifyable scientific theory.
"Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them."
> the "Warming Curve" why has it
> not been warming for over 16 years?
Huh? The decade just concluded was by far the warmest decade in the records.
One could say it was only in north america, like you did in your debate with Dr. Ball. However when you look at say NOAA's admited "Adjustments" to the records. See fig 3 here. jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/how-the-us-temperature-record-is-adjusted/ You find that. "The corrected data from NOAA has been used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming yet it would appear that the rising trend over the 20th century is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the “corrections” applied to the experimental data, at least in the US, and is not visible in the uncorrected experimental data record." Fig 5 shows the the data minus "corrections". And you get." The graph does not even remotely correlate to the shape of the CO2 versus time graph. The warming was greatest in the 1930’s before CO2 started to rise rapidly. The rate of rise in 1920, the early 1930’s and the early 1950’s is significantly greater than anything in the last 30 years. Despite the rapid rise in CO2 since 1960, the 1970’s to early 1980’s was the time of the global cooling scare and looking at the graph in Figure 5 one can see why (almost 2F cooling over 50 years)."
It's exactly this sort of decption that is turning public opinion away from beliving in AGW. Keep up the good work Dave.
> data available" so others
> can replicate or falsify the
> results. A Concept completely
> new to "Climate Science"
There are lots of archives of climate science data. Many have been collected by NOAA at lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html .
More are collected at: www.jhu.edu/~lhinnov1/paleoguide/archive.html
The World Data Center for Paleoclimatology is at:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ .
So you will need to provide at least one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent climate changes.
And one more caveat now that you have admitted warmists are liars, that paper must now come from a skeptic.
-continued below-
Overly smoothed! You mean like eliminating all the weather stations in the Arctic?
David see
'Detailed Response to "Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate" by Rahmstorf et al.'- Nir J. Shaviv, Jan Veizer
www.phys.huji.ac.il/%7Eshaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmstorfDebate.pdf
And
'Further response to "Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate" by Rahmstorf et al.'- Nir J. Shaviv, Jan Veizer
www.phys.huji.ac.il/%7Eshaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReplyReply.pdf
I'm sorry, but the cosmic ray hypothesis is still unproven. Yes, it has a few adherents. Ideas always do. That doesn't mean they're right. There are other scientists whose work shows that the hypothesis is wrong and/or can't account for the rapid rate of warming we're seeing today. These people will continue to fight it out and it will take some years still. As I wrote earlier there are still many open questions and until those are addressed and solved the hypothesis is unproven. This is how science works. So far the preponderance of the evidence is that the CR hypothesis cannot account for today's warming.
Yes but at least it is not a disproven hypothesis like AGW.
Missing a subtelty?
www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
And what about this guy?
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
David maybe you should actually read Shaviv and Veizer's replies and show where they are wrong.
There is simply a lot of work yet to do on Svensmark's hypothesis and it remains unproven.
Gee, we found a skeptic. NOT!
Someone still reveres this guy...
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Gullible or dishonest?
> by the IPCC’s own admission, it has
> ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of
> 80 percent of all factors impacting
> climate.
True, but the high confidence in the strongest factor, LLGHGs, is what makes the difference. Except for aerosol effects the other factors are smaller, often much smaller. And aerosols are worrisome because there are also strong human effects there too, and cleaning up air pollution would remove some of their negative forcing. And the real concern over LLGHGs is that we're obviously going to be putting much more of them into the atmosphere and oceans in the future, making the forcing even stronger.
What part of 80% do you not understand? I know what part of 80% the IPCC claims is their only blindspot.
Let's see what climate modelers have to say about their precious...
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
Gee I'm feeling better already. Now, the IPCC would never lie...
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up SCARY SCENARIOS, make simplified, DRAMATIC STATEMENTS and make LITTLE MENTION OF ANY DOUBTS... Each of us has to decide WHAT THE RIGHT BALANCE IS BETWEEN BEING EFFECTIVE AND BEING HONEST."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
LEAD AUTHOR OF MANY IPCC REPORTS
(cont'd below)
You go right ahead and trust the man who just told you he was going to make crap up to scare people.
Still want to bet on last year's Superbowl? I have been working on my model and you can trust me!
> have been right so far
Not true at all. Even simple models done 20 years ago on PC 386s did a fair job of back-predicting the past and projecting where we'd be today--see, for example, "Theory and Development of a One Dimensional Time Dependent Radiative Convective Climate Model," R.M. MacKay and M.A.K. Khalil, Chemosphere 22(3-4), 383-417, 1991.
And if anything IPCC models look to be *underestimating* current trends, especially Arctic melting and sea-level. See, for example, Rahmstorf et al, "Recent climate observations compared to projections," Science, 316, 709 (2007).
Just when did this become a religion for you? "back-predicting" is not "predicting", it is the past being recreated.
Duh.
From the abstract...
"This compares favorably with other previously published results for similar models.'
Comparing models to models! Oh boy!
David, do you even read what you post?
"Back-predicting?" And you buy into that?
I don't need a computer model to know what has already happened, that is not "predicting" it is another made up load of garbage just like the IPCC's "back radiation".
Be interesting to see how you resolve your claim of the IPCC's models "underestimating current trends" such as Arctic melt when the ice is growing.
Sounds more like they are overestimating (i.e. full of b.s.) to me.
Hey Robert! I'm still laughing about that one and cannot wait to share it with my coworkers Tuesday.
'I can back predict the past!' Genius!
As someone who has worked on the development and testing of emulators that is what I suspect they are attempting. An atmospheric emulator.
Our emulators rarely were in sync with the actual product they were designed to emulate. Always one step behind the hardware changes, and in order to accurately emulate the hardware we needed to observe the actual hardware to determine if our code was accurately emulating the behavior.
I can think of a number of ways I could write code that would result in the answer for some mathematical equation.
Each way would have widely varied input values but the end result would be THE answer.
However if only one set of the inputs was in fact the "correct" set then even though all of my other sets of inputs produce the same result that does not mean the model is accurate.
It certainly does not prove that future predictions/projections have any accuracy.
No David, they 'try' and describe, but again, But that depends on wether or not someone is trying to manipulte the model for personal gain.
Need I post the quotes again? I mean you still have not responded with shock and/or horror.
It doesn't matter if I now the end result is X and I reverse engineer a set of inputs that result in X.
If there are multiple data sets that result in X but only set D is correct yet I use set H then anything coming out of that going forward is incorrect.
It doesn't mater that I can say "using this data I can get X so my model is correct." GIGO. Garbage in == Garbage out.
Why do they refuse to release data so it can be subject to review?
Why is there so much involved that appears more like the practice of voodoo based on tribal knowledge than the practice of science?
They are trying to emulate (or perhaps simulate) the atmospheric process in a model. And so far the projections have all been wrong. So if the results going forward are wrong then something in their inputs as they went backwards was wrong.
GIGO
> CANNOT BE CALCULATE, at least not
> with our present domain of known
> variables and forcing data.
Yet models that take today's data as a starting point and use the known forcings of the past do back-predict the climate we've already had. This is the biggest reason why scientists think their models have some validity. And models developed in the past -- a time when knowledge and computing power were much less than today -- have done a fair job of predicting where we are today.
Ooooh!!! Predicting the past! How stimulating.
Hey, wanna bet on last year's Superbowl!
I bet I can build a model that accurately predicts the winner, maybe even the score! Care to wager!
Only of that is your actual intent.
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
First argument submitted. Remember. this is what he does and he not telling us this because he is ashamed.
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Well maybe 'we' should share that knowledge with the IPCC, because here is what they say about their understandings of forcings...
"The IPCC's Table 2.11 (2007) reveals, by the IPCC’s own admission, it has ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of 80 percent of all factors impacting climate."
Hurry Davey! They need your help!
The letters of protest by
Doug Hoyt, Richard C.Willson to the IPCC for the fraudulent manipulation of their data are very damning.
In greater detail here. yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wpi.nsf/2efc4c5acad95f918525669800666fd7/7a5516152467a30b85257562006c89a6/$FILE/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf
I think David was just lonely. Someone who has a blog that devotes so much time to climate change surely cannot be that ignorant of the facts.
Even took her own shot at writing some.
Perhaps you might want to see these about Lockwood and Frohlich's paper:
icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf
members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Lockwood/Gregory-CritiqueLockwood.pdf
motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
icecap.us/images/uploads/Lockwood_and_Frolich_Review.pdf
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/the_unruly_sunne_cannot_be_ruled_out_as_a_cause_of_recent_climate_variation.html
jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/08/lockwood-and-frohlich-part-1/
jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/08/lockwood-and-frohlich-part-2/
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/02/do-solar-scientists-still-think-that-recent-warming-is-too-large-to-explain-by-solar-activity/
"The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for the natural forcing of past climate changes on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with the solar activity. During the past 10 000 years, the Sun has experienced the substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years – all reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity – there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar forcing...We derive a total and spectral solar irradiance that was substantially lower during the Maunder minimum than the one observed today.
(cont'd below)
The difference is remarkably larger than other estimations published in the recent literature. The magnitude of the solar UV variability, which indirectly affects the climate, is also found to exceed previous estimates." [A. I. Shapiro, W. Schmutz, E. Rozanov, M. Schoell, M. Haberreiter, A. V. Shapiro, and S. Nyeki 2011: Astronomy & Astrophysics]
Something else you can now blog about. No really David, they 'claimed something that was obviously false'.
Besides, I don't see where you have covered this on your blog.
Maybe if you were not just one in a vast sea of alarmist bloggers you would attract more visitors.
www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Many of the other papers come from Climate Research, which also has a low opinion after publishing the Soon & Baliunas paper which was just plain wrong. Several editors of CR resigned after that, in protest.
No reputable scientist would publish in either journal if their work could be accepted elsewhere. They're well known as the slums of climate science.
Quote:Yet you also write:
Quote:No matter how you pretty up the language you are doing exactly what you criticize Gator for.
Pot meet kettle.
You continue to prove that when he calls believers in AGW duplicitous he is correct.
Hey David! They and you are losers, you are losing the debate and public support/opinion.
I'm on the iPhone on the patio and do not have time to cut and paste the definition of 'loser', but I think you get my point!
Try and come up with something new rather than rehash all the AGW talking points that we've heard before. We really are tired of how "overwhelmed" you believers are.
Psychologically you are projecting, and psychologically you are in denial of that projection.
Amazing isn't it, that you're a denier and don't even recognize the fact?
As Robert pointed out, you have an issue with projection.
You continue to deny facts and play with a failed hypothesis. You return time and time again to the UN, like a dog to his vomit.
The UN and the IPCC are two of the most widely discredited bodies man created since the Roman Empire. Shall I list out all the errors and lies for you?
Quit denying facts and let's have a reasoned discussion. I still have not noticed any alarm about the modeler and lead IPCC author admitting they are liars.
An honest person would have reacted differently.
David see
'Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment'
www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html
and
z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4042
Quoting David Appell:
David Climate Research is a peer reviewed journal. It is clearly included on EBSCO's list of peer reviewed journals
www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf
David there are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers supporting what was shown in the S&B paper; that the planet was warmer in the medieval time than it is today.
See
www.co2science.org/
www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
> paper was simply because most of the
> people criticising it, simply didn't like > it's results.
No, it's because it had outright logical errors in its analysis. I wrote an article for the August 2003 issue of Scientific American that spelled them out in detail.
Oh please please please share it with us!
And then explain this guy...
"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."[/b]
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Read the article: "Hot Words: A claim of nonhuman-induced global warming sparks debate," Scientific American, June 24, 2003 (Web) and August 2003 (print), pp. 20-22.
Second paragraph...
"They concluded in the January Climate Research that "across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium."
Hoow dare they claim such a thing!
We all know the vikings were just paid off by big oil during the MWP!
Hey, wait a minute...
Good job watchdog!
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
I know you can read, and even tried defending Folland.
Felt weasely lately?
> journal.
Just because a paper is peer-reviewed does not make it true--all peer review means is that the paper is not obviously false and conforms to scholarly standards. Climate Research shot itself in the foot by publishing the 2003 Soon and Baliunas paper, which caused the newly appointed Editor-in-Chief to resign in protest, as did several other editors. They were publishing junk. I think they've been trying clean up their act since then, but they have a very high hurdle to get over now. They are certainly not in the same league as Science, Nature, or the AGU journals. So I'm very skeptical of any claims that come from there, especially from authors whose work has been shown to be false (like Soon, Baliunas, Douglass, etc).
Duplicity, thy name is David!
Soooo, no other peer reviewed research was sub par?
OK, then just explain this guy...
"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."[/i]
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Well look what I found.
"Some of those whose work was referenced by Soon and Baliunas were particularly critical. Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography commented that "the fact that [the paper] has received any attention at all is a result, again in my view, of its utility to those groups who want the global warming issue to just go away". Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, whose work on dendrochronology was discussed in the paper, called it "so fundamentally misconceived and contain[ing] so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all."[8]
(cont'd below)
So who is the source, [8]?
8- Appell, David (2006). Human, Katy. ed. Critical Perspectives on World Climate. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 171. ISBN 9781404206885
So david is David's source, huh.
And what pray tell makes you an authority on anything?
David Appell
Gender: Male
Industry: Communications or Media
Occupation: freelance science journalist
Location: St. Helens : Oregon : United States
Gee, how many hours of climatology and geology did that require?
Back to his wiki GIGO and further down the page...
Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws."
What Frauds!
David blog posts on Real Climate does not necessarily mean that a paper is wrong. Only published criticism counts.
Not in today's world, on blogs like RC and others, where the criticism is quite detailed and comes from professionals and experts and includes references to the literature and established results. These kind of communications can serve just as well as the responses one often sees in the scientific literature.
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
You keep lying and we keep burning you. Are all journalists this dumb?
The norm seems to be that anyone not in support of the AGW agenda is trivialized.
Support the agenda, then it doesn't really matter what their particular field, they are a "noted and respected scientist".
Skeptical? Then (as we see time and time again) they are trivialized, claims are made they aren't a "climate scientist" (though that never seems to matter if they support the agenda).
In this issue there is peer review and their is pal review. Since many dissenting voices are intentionally excluded they publish when and where they can.
However we again see the double standard applied, if it supports the agenda then where they have published is held up as the "holy grail" of whether or not it is "reputable science".
Skeptics make their data freely available, don't claim to have lost it or require a court order to review it.
Quote:
If it supports the AGW agenda then where they published isn't important, only when they are skeptics does where they publish become a concern?
Then you make some lame comparison to a democracy?
You really are a head case.
The consensus in science is really the bastian of defiance who stand to lose as the truth erupts to the surface with a single voice of reason and Eureka! which eventually gains in acceptance as efforts to falsify the new truth fall in ruin against it.
> in support of the AGW agenda
> is trivialized.
AGW isn't an "agenda," it's a scientific finding.
There are good scientists who do not accept the consensus. A few of them. Most who oppose it are easily shown to be wrong, like Fred Singer (is.gd/vmHeyR). In fact, it's often quite easy to show that they're wrong. After doing that again and again and again you come to believe that they're not really so interested in scientific truth but have other motives....
> And who are you to determine who
> is and who isn't a "noted and
> respected scientist"?
No one in particular, though with respect to you I suspect I'm much better qualified to make that judgement.
Proof is another matter and you have none.
The case for carbon dioxide is hopeless and any credentialled scientists who seeks to promote its continuing role in modern climate variance is guilty of malpractice.
Yes it is very obvious what he is. I believe Gator said he shut his blog down, apparently no one wants to read his "science" there so (very much like Harry) he comes here to preach.
It would be nice if they would figure out that people come here to read something OTHER than the tried and true alarmist chants.
You would think as smart as they try to portray themselves that they would be able to figure out something as simple as that.
Adam, Gator, Amirlach, et al. will chew him up on the science, I just like to irritate him.
David is lonely. Have you seen his site? Don't feel bad, virtually noone has.
Yes, the public has had their fill of boys crying wolf, and chicken littles.
Red Jeff would have a good time discussing species loss.
Lord Turnbull Thrashes the IPCC
Global warming news from the Brits (UK Dooms Itself)
Sea Levels Not behaving In line With Warmist Predictions
Lockwood: No Wind For 40 years
Kyoto Deal Loses Four Big Nations
Climate Commission Report Debunked
all from 30th May 2011
Germany's Fourth Reich: Teutonic Eco-Nazis Submit Master Green Plan to Rid World Of Democracy. please google
Hey anne! Change by decree. Because they know better.
No debate! Time is short, we must act now!
Gee, where have I seen this before...
I'd say you both made good points. When you know the facts are on your side, there is nothing that can defeat you.
I learn new climate related facts almost daily, and they do nothing but reconfirm what I discovered years ago. Man does not drive global climate.
> human CO2 dropped dramatically during
> the great depression, where is
> the signature in the record?"
Are there records of atmospheric CO2 composition from the 1930s? I'd be interested to know. Keeling started taking data in 1959, I think
Gee David is Keeling the only one? The end all be all of Co2 measurements?
What about the proxies like Tree Rings you defend so vigourously? Sediments and Ice Cores or even direct measures?
How do you think the preperties of Co2 have been known for two centuries? That's right they made direct IMPERICAL OBSERVATIONS! All made without Computer Models! As incredible as this sounds it's true. Science can be done without 386's. www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
And therein lies the problem, David. The last two words of your statement: "I think"
They are in the ice cores they've been harvesting for decades. Snapshots of the atmosphere from millions of years ago to today. Medieval Warm Period had no significant CO2 increase yet it was so warm Greenland was, well, green. Vineyards grew in Britain for the first time. AGW via CO2 and temperature increase is a theory that has been disproved over and over again. As Einstein once said, paraphrasing, you only need to find one scientist to disprove my theories. Not the hundreds that the nazis hired to discredit him (and failed). Last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago (one last gasp before it was officially over) and the Earth is still warming up before it begins to start cooling again when the next ice age begins. Don't worry. We'll all be dead before that happens but it will happen, more CO2 or not. The climate changes. Always has, always will. We may have paved paradise into a parking lot, but the Earth will just shake us off like ice cubes from a tray. Give or take in another 100,000 years.
Jake, please show me a link to the data. Anecdotes are useless.
In fact, Keeling's data began in 1958.
So what is your point?
We have heard time and time again (when it is say 100 degrees F in some particular location) that it is "proof of warming".
Even though it is a localized event, and not representative of global temperatures.
When it's cooler than normal anywhere we can't use the same logic alarmists use to claim warming?
Sorry David, if you can claim that localized events aren't proof of cooling then localized events do not prove warming either.
We have more to worry about from cooling than any concerns about imaginary warming.
Humans, plants, and animals do much, much better when things are warm than when they start freezing.
I saw Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon, that was science.
A few years later many of your scientist buddies were sounding the alarm about the coming ice age.
Deny that all you want, I was there and I know the Time magazine covers were real because my parents had them.
It never happened. Now they claim warming while I am regularly seeing weather patterns that were the "norm" in the 70's.
This speaks of the cyclical nature of the Earth's climate.
As I learned my science before it had been transformed into the "activist indoctrination" that children are taught today I trust my instincts and reasoning ability far more than yours on this issue.
David the work of 977 individual scientists from 565 research institutions in 43 different countries has shown that the MWP was real, global and warmer than today.
See
www.co2science.org/
www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
> Last ice age ended about 10,000 years
> ago (one last gasp before it
> was officially over) and the Earth
> is still warming up before it begins
> to start cooling again when the next
> ice age begins.
In fact, there is concern about why we are now warming when many think we should be continuing into the new ice age, which many think began with the LIA. The LIA was likely the "cooling" of which you speak. Why are we now, then, warming?
> AGW via CO2 and temperature increase
> is a theory that has been disproved
> over and over again.
Absolute, pure bullshit.
I take it that you do not read the scientific literature or attend the conferences of professional climate scientists.... Do you?
You mean people whose careers depend upon this?
Where geologists, phycists, et. al are ignored because "they aren't climate scientists".
Even though we have heard time and again how "climate science" is a multi-disciplinary field?
Apparently as you are so profoundly apt at demonstrating it is a multi-duplicitous field as well.
What's the matter David, no one wants to read your fantasies on your own blog so you have to fill this one up with them?
Tim Curtin writes:
“The exceptionally inconvenient truth is that there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures when both are measured at Mauna Loa. It only requires ability to use Google to verify my assertion. Neither James Hansen of NASA-GISS and NOAA nor Phil Jones of HadleyCRUT at Exeter and Norwich chooses to log temperature at Mauna Loa itself. Instead they prefer to represent Hawaii’s temperatures by those at Honolulu Airport, where the arrival of Boeing 707s in 1960 and 747s by 1970 had a very direct impact on temperatures there. But of temperatures at Mauna Loa, selected by the late and estimable Charles Keeling for its pristine lack of purely local influences, there is no mention by the aforesaid Hansen and Jones."
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/hansen-it-is-your-eyes-that-are-lying-not-me/ "Conclusion : Hansen is wrong about both greenhouse gas growth and temperature change – even using his own bloated temperature numbers. Climate sensitivity is much lower than he projected. It is time for him to come clean about this."
Quote: Like these guys? www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded
"EIKE vs PIK" Debate. notrickszone.com/2011/05/18/skeptics-and-alarmists-clash-at-climate-conference-german-scientists-call-pik-scientific-position-weak/
The Climate Doomers argument boiled down to."The scientific position and ability of PIK scientists during that meeting was rather weak. Whenever they had to agree that observation do not show any special increase neither in extreme weather, temperature nor sea level and so on, they mentioned: ‘But our models show…"
You must be joking! The number of credentialed "climate scientists" who posses a pedegree with the words "Climate Science" emblazoned onto them number so few, we can probably count them on our fingers.
The real climate scientists are the geologists, atmospheric physicists, chemists, paleontologists and such who make a life of studying the causes and effects of climate and its behavior over the eons.
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Thankyou David for once again being so very (dis)honest!
The elites, especially leftists think we are stupid, and it comes back to bite them every time. We get alot of trolls here, like Harryhammer who called us all 'hillbillies', a badge I wear with honor now.
The world's most powerful military once said the same thing of my forefathers, who defeated them with squirrel guns.
Logic is like a squirrel gun. It is simple, true and powerful. And it always kills squirrels.
Logic states that one cannot blame man's teensy weensy CO2 contribution to the atmospheric budget for altering the climate, unless one can rule out or at least accurately quantify natural variability. Geniuses like Schneider still have not done this, and this is why they must lie to us now.
They can pull a Bill Clinton and wave their finger into the camera saying, 'I did not have sex with that woman', but we know better. We know that despitte his globally televised debate on the meaning of the word 'is', that slick willy was playing doctor with the chubby intern. While he was waiving his hands and while the useful idiots were defending him we all sat and watched the letch who cheated on his wife with a girl about his daughters age, and we all knew he was a liar.
David can defend liars all day, and he does.
Scientists who lie to the public cease to be scientists. They are then activists and should be ignored. David, like his fellow AGW worshippers, has overplayed his hand. Thankyou again for finally responding, it is more illustrating for those reading this thread than you will ever understand.
(cont'd below)
Americans, for the most part, value honesty and integrity. That is the main reason AGW is falling flat on its face.
David is a liar that defends liars, and he is finished.
Hey David! You can post all you like, but since you have shown yourself to be a complete liar who supports other liars, you will only damage your reputation further.
This is not a simple child's game of 'war'. We do not sit down across from each other and compare papers, reshuffle the deck and start over.
Your warmist preists have made a wild claim regarding the effects of anthropogenic CO2, and now it is time to put up or shut up.
Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that either rules out natural variability or at least accurately quantifies it. Short of that, all you have to offer us is lies or a confession.
You have admitted that the warmists will lie and cheat to get their agenda through. You were right about one thing David, AGW is not an agenda, it is a means to an ends. And we all know that you are of the crowd that believes the ends justifies the means. You have confessed as much.
So no, I will not trust anything you say, and I will demand proof, not models and not correlation. So will all intelligent peoples. You are not smart David, clever maybe, but not smart.
You forget that we have seen many instances of elitism and fascism over the past century, and it never ends well. They too thought they knew better. Ovens for humans, tens of millions starved, economies wrecked, etc...
Your arrogance, as always, will be your downfall. Schneider was arrogant to think he could say that garbage and get away with it, and you so arrogant that you thought his comment was defensible.
The burden of proof falls on you and you have fallen on your lying face.
Logic is simple, powerful and invincible.
Tell the folks at the 'Liars Club" we all said 'hey'.
Did some grilling myself yesterday, windy as could be but the rain held off so I managed.
Warming up here FINALLY. Was mid-80s yesterday, nasty humid though from all the recent rain.
Here's something interesting for you. NOAA forecasts, and the news forecasts differ by about 3-5 degrees F. (NOAA being cooler)
However the NOAA forecasts for my area (semi-rural) and for the cities differ by 1-2 degrees F (cities being warmer).
And the NOAA reading for my area (small local airport about 10 miles north of here) reads about 1.2 degrees F warmer than my weather station.
But I'm sure now that it is FINALLY warming up locally we'll be hearing how it's a sign that it's global.
It is getting hot. Looks like a blocking pattern is going to bake most of the US this week. My brother and family were at the Memorial Day concert in DC. My sister in law said that as soon as the Sun set it was quite pleasant. I'm sure she must be mistaken, because David says the Sun doesn't do much.
Wait a minute, I almost forgot, he's no 'journalist', he's a propagandist by his own admission. A proud graduate of the Edward Bernays School of Social Engineering and Spin.
Since I have a LED-LCD flat screen (supposed to be cooler than the fluorescent LCD it replaced which was moved downstairs) along with my laptop, a tower workstation that I pipe through the big LCD, a halogen desk lamp (looked at some LED desk lamps to replace it but the light from them was atrocious )with all this junk in a room on the top level of the house I hit 79 in here last night right around the time our nightly low of 69 was hit.
I am seriously considering building a frame I can slip in and out of one of the windows and mounting a windows A/C in the summer so I can cool things up here.
Since the central A/C is something from the 80's and I have no idea when/if it has ever been serviced (kind of afraid to call someone since I suspect the refrigerant is no longer "available") it seemed to me that a good modern window unit with known efficiency/energy ratings would be the way to go.
I expect it would make for a lower power bill too than running that antique of a central unit.
Makes you wonder how much of the "oh it's so hot" that people complain about (and I suspect then associate with the AGW scare) comes from all of the appliances and electronics we use these days. Now that is some seriously localized temperature but in general people aren't that bright these days so I doubt very many get that.
Malcolm Robert from the Galileo Movement in Australia told me recently, I quote
"In personal correspondence with Tim Ball he admits the label greenhouse gas for CO2 is nonsense and that he continues to use the term simply because most people are so brainwashed by the government and UN IPCC that he doesn't want to complicate the debate beyond many people's misunderstanding. There are after all sufficient facts available to show that CO2 is not doing what the UN IPCC and some western governments are falsely claiming."
Is that true? It is very hard to believe for me. You list CO2 as a greenhouse gas in your scientific fact list eventhough you beleive it is nonsense. It is very hard to believe for me that you would do so as scientist.
Please let me know if it is true or not if you don't mind. I'd appreciate it.