Global Warming Total Fraud

[RavenHawk]

The NAS assessed the IPCC data and more, and gave its conclusions in a report linked in my earlier message.

Skeptics decided to support an independent study of the matter by funding BEST, and findings are found here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

There’s nothing usual about that. If Berkeley goes back even further, they would discover that the average is 1.5° C per century.

Finally, if there is any point regarding a "political tool" in this issue, it's that the IPCC has underestimated the effects of climate change:

I think it’s being reported that the IPCC has overestimated it. But I’m willing to wait and see. I want to see which side spins it the most.

[RavenHawk]

Let me ask a more pertinent question. If Man did not exist today, would the planet be experiencing a warming period or cooling?

[Guest]

Gawd! Why don't you ask me what the meaning of *IS* is? Why don't you even answer any of my questions?

What is the cause of past warming? Or are you claiming that climate change didn't occur prior to 1850?

It should be simple, you are just refusing to accept the doubt I've presented to AGW and you're trying to find any little thing you can to attach me with. It just won't work.

I will quote from another of our members because he says it better than I can;

There are probably dozens of cycles that affect climate. The Chandler Wobble, the Bond Cycle, the solar cycle. The NAO is cyclic; so is the PDO. There is an unidentified sixteen-year cycle. The Milankovitch cycles (There are three of them.) aren't the only ones the affect climate. And like you say, volcanos add a random element (non-cyclic decay curve).

All you have to do is find the amplitude, period and offset for each of them, then subtract them out of your data. Temperature rise is what is left over. It's pretty straight-forward stuff. These have all been quantified. If you can't do the math yourself and/or lack access to the data, you can read up on it in climatology publications.

All climate change has an identifiable cause which can be subtracted to show any overall trend. The current change is dramatic because it happened so suddenly and has no natural forcing.

The reason I don't answer your questions is because they are meaningless, you don't understand what constitutes a proof and what constitutes a refutation of a proof. Carters statements do not address the proof of climate change - simply stating that climate changed in the past is not a refutation of AGW theory - its a truism which everyone knows - but doesn't disprove the evidence for man made climate change. Man made Climate change as it is currently happening is the residual after natural cycles have been calculated and accounted for. It has a set of characteristics which can be measured Empirically which are different to natural climate change (such as stratospheric cooling). The temperature record is only part of AGW, and until you can account for what it actually says about the climate you are just blustering.

You are just hand waving, and all your blather about Class One civilization is just gobledy gook SI-FI talk which is frankly insane. Man is very capable of changing his environment in profound ways and has been doing so since he began clear felling the primal forests of the planet. To imagine that he cannot change every aspect of the biosphere in profound ways is just a statement of your own ignorance of the history of humanity.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 21, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

Let me ask a more pertinent question. If Man did not exist today, would the planet be experiencing a warming period or cooling?

Cooling is what the overall trend says we would be in. we have been naturally cooling since the ice age rebound about 8 thousand years ago. Nothing had changed naturally since the last 150 years to significantly change that so we could expect that the trend over the last 150 years would have continued its overall trend downwards.

Br Cornelius

[MonkeyLove]

Applying some intuition to this, it seems to me it can be absolutely true that the sun contributes more than 99 percent of the earth's temperature and that be irrelevant to this discussion. Based on the sun's output, earths average temperature could be anywhere between close to absolute zero and maybe a few thousand degrees.

The global warming discussion, on the other hand, is concerned with less than ten degrees. Other factors could be involved here even though the sun is overwhelmingly predominant.

The point is that you only need a very slight change in ave. temp to affect plant and animal species, etc. You will find more details in the NAS final report.

[MonkeyLove]

Granted, but attacking the report before it comes out won't change the content. I'm waiting to see not only the report but the stink it raises. After watching both sides go at it, I'll chime in with who I think is correct. We'll see who is ill informed.

Attacking a report before it comes out? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Changing the content? Why not look at previous data? You'll find more details in the NAS final report.

Prefer an independent study? So do skeptics. Check out the BEST, which they supported.

I can almost guarantee that the WSJ has hyped it with their own spin. And I can guarantee that the IPCC will spin the data they have. But that won't change the fact that it sounds like the IPCC is dialing back on their doom and gloom prediction and that warming is not happening as fast as they thought. That in itself, shoots down AGW. But at the same time, you'll see the AGW apologists still stay on message by claiming that it is still warming. Just because the IPCC over estimated won't seem to give them pause. Well, of course it is warming; we are in a warming period.

The issue isn't over-estimating but not including data about oceans absorbing heat.

[MonkeyLove]

Very interesting report. But I see that it is from May 2011. For all practical purposes, reports like this are on hold until the IPCC report comes out on the 27th.

Long-term trends do not change after two years.

I find that a lot of reports like this present good data, but politically motivated conclusions.

And yet BEST, which was supported by deniers, came up with similar findings.

However, perusing the NAS report, under Key Messages, it states: “Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities.” For one, climate change has never been in question and two, this doesn’t sound very absolute that Man is the cause.

Read the whole report, and the data that were used, instead of one sentence. More important, read the BEST summary of findings. That's an eye-opener because BEST was supported by deniers.

NAS concluding a forcing and feedback effects seems to be more of a copout when they really aren’t sure and I think the IPCC report will reflect that. That the positive feedback just isn’t as positive as it once was thought. Our system fluctuates in order to reach equilibrium. Forcing and feedback work together to keep stasis. Once we become a Type I Civilization, then we will begin to have the ability to terra form. We’ll be able to freely increase or decrease the CO2 levels.

Concluding a forcing and feedback effect is not a "cop out" but the opposite. And it's not just the IPCC but even BEST findings will support that.

The rest of your paragraph ironically supports what the NAS said. The problem is the effects of that point in which equilibrium has to be reached. Why do you think oceans are absorbing heat?

Finally, there's a difference between giving actual proof that we are becoming "a Type I Civilization" and arguing that we will because we wish it.

Edited September 21, 2013 by MonkeyLove

[MonkeyLove]

There's nothing usual about that. If Berkeley goes back even further, they would discover that the average is 1.5° C per century.

What's usual is that it was funded by deniers. And you don't at the ave. temp for centuries but the correlation between temp. and CO2 ppm.

I think it's being reported that the IPCC has overestimated it. But I'm willing to wait and see. I want to see which side spins it the most.

They didn't overestimate it. Rather, they didn't consider data on oceans absorbing heat.

Given that, if any, they've been underestimating the effects of AGW the past two decades.

[MonkeyLove]

Let me ask a more pertinent question. If Man did not exist today, would the planet be experiencing a warming period or cooling?

Temp. anomalies go up and down, as Vostok data shows. CO2 ppm correlates with temp. anomalies.

The problem is that CO2 ppm is now higher than it was the last few hundreds of thousands of years. The issue, then, is the effect of CO2 ppm on other factors that may or may not increase temp. anomalies.

Skeptics argue that ave. temp has not gone up considerably, but it has. They argue that it "stopped" during various years, but the increase has never been in a steady direction. Rather, it goes up and down, but the trend is upward:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html

The same goes for Arctic sea ice, etc.:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm

Now, they argue that because temp. increase has slowed down, models overestimated. What is likely is that models didn't look at oceans absorbing heat:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm

which means the warming did not stop.

[Little Fish]

Cooling is what the overall trend says we would be in. we have been naturally cooling since the ice age rebound about 8 thousand years ago. Nothing had changed naturally since the last 150 years to significantly change that so we could expect that the trend over the last 150 years would have continued its overall trend downwards.

Br Cornelius

the warming over the last 150 years has occurred many times over the last 8,000 years within a general cooling trend, so you can't say "we should be cooling".

what study are you referring to? can you show a graph of how you put the context of the last 150 years temperature into the last 8,000 years?

are you referring to the Shaun Marcott study? you know nobody has any confidence in the 150 year uptick on his graph, even marcott himself has no confidence in it, you know that, right?

or are you referring to a different study?

[Guest]

the warming over the last 150 years has occurred many times over the last 8,000 years within a general cooling trend, so you can't say "we should be cooling".

what study are you referring to? can you show a graph of how you put the context of the last 150 years temperature into the last 8,000 years?

are you referring to the Shaun Marcott study? you know nobody has any confidence in the 150 year uptick on his graph, even marcott himself has no confidence in it, you know that, right?

or are you referring to a different study?

Manns work demonstrates that there has been no similar warming over a period of at least a thousand years.

You may not trust Mann - but that places you in a fringe minority.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Manns work demonstrates that there has been no similar warming over a period of at least a thousand years.

You may not trust Mann - but that places you in a fringe minority.

Br Cornelius

It's not a question of trusting Mann, Mann's hockey stick was proven to be flawed, it died years ago.

you said 8,000 years. now you are saying 1,000 years...so you were referring to marcott who himself says:

"the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes"

you should read the entire article to understand why the graph you are referring to is blx.

"here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct"

http://rogerpielkejr...te-science.html

we've been over this before, even I could see it before professor pielke's article:

http://www.unexplain...l= marcott&st=0

furthermore, it has since been uncovered that the marcott study was his phd thesis where he did not use the 20th century uptick because it is not valid. Seems to me his reviewers pressured him to add the uptick in the published version to try and corroborate Mann's dead hockey stick. who reviewed it, bet it was Mann.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Little Fish

[MonkeyLove]

the warming over the last 150 years has occurred many times over the last 8,000 years within a general cooling trend, so you can't say "we should be cooling".

what study are you referring to? can you show a graph of how you put the context of the last 150 years temperature into the last 8,000 years?

are you referring to the Shaun Marcott study? you know nobody has any confidence in the 150 year uptick on his graph, even marcott himself has no confidence in it, you know that, right?

or are you referring to a different study?

This might help:

http://kottke.org/13/09/temperature-chart-for-the-last-11000-years

That is, a cooling trend for the last 5,000 years or so, until the last 250 years.

[Guest]

It's not a question of trusting Mann, Mann's hockey stick was proven to be flawed, it died years ago.

you said 8,000 years. now you are saying 1,000 years...so you were referring to marcott who himself says:

"the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes"

you should read the entire article to understand why the graph you are referring to is blx.

"here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct"

http://rogerpielkejr...te-science.html

we've been over this before, even I could see it before professor pielke's article:

http://www.unexplain...l= marcott&st=0

furthermore, it has since been uncovered that the marcott study was his phd thesis where he did not use the 20th century uptick because it is not valid. Seems to me his reviewers pressured him to add the uptick in the published version to try and corroborate Mann's dead hockey stick. who reviewed it, bet it was Mann.

Keep repeating that mantra LF. Far from been discredited - it has been duplicated many times using different datasets.

Even if you dismiss the last portion of the Marcott paper, which I can accept is valid in the context of his study, it still doesn't change the fact that it shows a steady and consistent cooling over the last 8 thousand years. That finding is robust and is perfectly in keeping with what is understood about the main driver of the long term cycles of climate, namely the Milankovich cycles.

You may have convinced yourself - but your not fooling anyone with your denial of the hockey stick. We wont go over the reasons for your error again as the facts don't change no matter how many times you repeat them.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 23, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

Even if you dismiss the last portion of the Marcott paper, which I can accept is valid in the context of his study, it still doesn't change the fact that it shows a steady and consistent cooling over the last 8 thousand years. That finding is robust and is perfectly in keeping with what is understood about the main driver of the long term cycles of climate, namely the Milankovich cycles.

what you are denying is that there are upticks similar to 20th centiury warming within that steady cooling over the last 10,000 years. the marcott study doesn't show those upticks because the resolution is too low - take a sine wave 12 inches long with 1 inch period. smooth off just the first 11 inches (similar to marcott) and you'll get a hockey stick. a sine wave is not a hockey stick.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Little Fish

[Guest]

what you are denying is that there are upticks similar to 20th centiury warming within that steady cooling over the last 10,000 years. the marcott study doesn't show those upticks because the resolution is too low - take a sine wave 12 inches long with 1 inch period. smooth off just the first 11 inches (similar to marcott) and you'll get a hockey stick. a sine wave is not a hockey stick.

That is why Marcott only includes it to show context and declares it none robust in his study. However Mann shows that there are no such upticks in the last 1000-2000 year period.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

That is why Marcott only includes it to show context and declares it none robust in his study. However Mann shows that there are no such upticks in the last 1000-2000 year period.

Br Cornelius

mann's study also "showed" there was no medieval warm period.

from the forthcoming leaked ipcc report

"The 30 years from 1983-2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.

meaning, even the ipcc consensus now recognise mann's air brushing out of the MWP is very likely blx.

http://wattsupwithth...-under-the-bus/

mann's dead hockey stick, rubbish science.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

Edited September 23, 2013 by Little Fish

[Guest]

mann's study also "showed" there was no medieval warm period.

from the forthcoming leaked ipcc report

"The 30 years from 1983-2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.

meaning, even the ipcc consensus now recognise mann's air brushing out of the MWP is very likely blx.

http://wattsupwithth...-under-the-bus/

mann's dead hockey stick, rubbish science.

http://joannenova.co...nd-hidden-data/

Quoting Watts up isn't really proof of anything Little Fish.

As to the second one, using the "the Wegman Report" as a credible source, enough said

As for one of their main arguments concerning borehole proxies, well a amalgamated proxy reconstruction firmly supports the hockey stick;

The borehole locations;

http://www.earth.lsa...imate/core.html

----------

An educational read - devoid of the CT's;

http://en.wikipedia....ick_controversy

Br Cornelius

Edited September 23, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

Quoting Watts up isn't really proof of anything Little Fish.

As to the second one, using the "the Wegman Report" as a credible source, enough said

As for one of their main arguments concerning borehole proxies, well a amalgamated proxy reconstruction firmly supports the hockey stick;

that graph doesn;t even cover the medieval warm period.

discussion with you is impossible.

[+DieChecker]

that graph doesn;t even cover the medieval warm period.

discussion with you is impossible.

Maybe this is where the Medieval Warm Period disappeared to....

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

[RavenHawk]

Maybe this is where the Medieval Warm Period disappeared to....

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

Good article. Reminds me of how the early Church stagnated the advance of science out of ignorance.

George Taylor: There's your Minister of Science; honor-bound to expand the frontiers of knowledge...

Dr. Zira: Taylor, please!

George Taylor: ...except that he's also chief Defender of the Faith!

Dr. Zaius: There is no contradiction between faith and science... true science!

George Taylor: Are you willing to put that statement to the test?

[Guest]

that graph doesn;t even cover the medieval warm period.

discussion with you is impossible.

Maybe the MWP was a predominently Northern European event as has been shown by the difference between European reconstructions and global reconstructions. If you want to see the MWP look exclusively at the Northern European data and it will come out looking much more like the deniers believe.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

that graph doesn;t even cover the medieval warm period.

discussion with you is impossible.

Maybe LF, thats because thats the only dataset which has adequate global coverage to say what the average temperature was across the whole planet and not just Northern Europe. Its not satisfactory to infer global trends from a limited geographical coverage - because that would be called cherry picking.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Maybe LF, thats because thats the only dataset which has adequate global coverage to say what the average temperature was across the whole planet and not just Northern Europe. Its not satisfactory to infer global trends from a limited geographical coverage - because that would be called cherry picking.

Br Cornelius

99% of the hundreds of studies from all parts of the world, pole to pole, asia to the americas acknowledge a warm period between 900-1400AD (curious that you'd show a graph that starts at 1500ad to show the MWP was just a fantasy of the climate science commmunity). michael mann does one study that removes it by using a technique derided by several statistics experts. even the ipcc have now walked away from it.

[Almagest]

mann's study also "showed" there was no medieval warm period.

from the forthcoming leaked ipcc report

"The 30 years from 1983-2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.

When exactly do you think the Medieval period was?