Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
darkmoonlady

Global Warming Total Fraud

494 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

The period shows temperature anomalies across the globe for that period, but many were negative and that is why proxie reconstructions only show a strong MWP in the Northern Hemisphere centred around Europe. Taking the mean of all the global proxies shows that the MWP was not as spectactular as you would like to portray and is why Manns hockey stick shows relatively little warming for the globe over that period.

The borehole proxie's shows almost no LIA either which again goes to show that it was a predominantly European event rather than a global one.

Overall what is most significant here is that the current warming of the Global mean temperature has exceeded the MWP and has done so at a much faster rate than the gradual increase that preceded the MWP. The main point is that Manns hockey stick is a true reflection of the global temperature trend over the last 1000+ years.

What you are attempting to do is to take the most extreme warming location for the MWP and infer that the whole world warmed equally strongly. This would be like using the current Arctic warming to infer that the globe has warmed 3-5 degree's centigrade in the last 150 years which would plainly be cherry picking.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Its really quite simple regarding the Mann hockey stick. You either accept it, and those many studies which have duplicated it as genuine, along with the investigations by national science academies into its authenticity, as been a true reflection of the temperature record - or you subscribe to the notion that the whole field of climate science and those who support it are indulging in a massive and all encompassing Conspiracy. There really are no other alternatives regarding the Hockey Stick.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Taking the mean of all the global proxies shows that the MWP was not as spectactular as you would like to portray

I don’t think he was implying that it was spectacular; just that it existed and was significant. Just as the LIA that followed existed which destroys the hockey stick concept. The hockey stick is sensationalism to the extreme. This is another example of what lengths AGW apologists will go to to hang on to their crumbling theory. If one thing doesn’t pan out, they will latch onto something else.

Which is a good segue into this. I literally stumbled across it last night.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923,0,791164.story

Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth's average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.

This seems to be the core of the message of the IPCC report but this won’t stop the AGW apologist. They will find something to cling to and what it’ll be is the fact that the oceans absorb the heat and when water warms, it expands. And they’re going with that as the reasons for rising water and not melting ice caps. So with warmer oceans, the melting ice caps can’t shut off the Gulf Stream Conveyor. But wait a minute! Isn’t that what the AGW apologists where saying that the hockey stick was going to melt the ice caps and that was going to shut down the GSC? So in actuality, we end up with equilibrium in the system as climate naturally changes – Gaia adapts to change, shouldn’t we?

Now, as scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gather in Sweden this week to approve portions of the IPCC's fifth assessment report, they are finding themselves pressured to explain this glaring discrepancy.

Gee, how political is that? Let me guess, they will only approve that which supports AGW – by consensus, not science.

The panel, a United Nations creation that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore,…

I thought Gore was not a scientist, yet he and his predictions are still leading the IPCC. The poster boy for AGW.

Though scientists don't have any firm answers, they do have multiple theories.

This is probably the best description of “Solid Science” that I’ve seen. This is also why it is the perfect political tool.

Xie has argued that the hiatus is the result of heat absorption by the Pacific Ocean — a little-understood, naturally occurring process that repeats itself every few decades.

Another curious comment. How many other little-understood, naturally occurring processes are there? I guess they don’t exist at least until the next hockey stick is long buried, then AGW apologists will latch onto another little-understood one to keep the theory alive. When it becomes more understood, it is no longer useful to AGW apologists.

For the general public, the existence of the hiatus has been difficult to reconcile with reports of record-breaking summer heat and precedent-setting Arctic ice melts.

When you are at a local peak, of course the surrounding summers will be record breaking. It all depends on how deep the trough that we are moving into lasts before the next chance for a higher peak.

At the same time, those who deny the tenets of climate change science — that the burning of fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and warms it — have seized on the hiatus, calling it proof that global warming isn't real.

I believe that this is incorrect. It’s not climate change that is being denied, it’s AGW. These are two totally different things. No one is denying that burning fossil fuels increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is being denied is that Man can change the climate. He can dirty his environment (or clean it up) but he doesn’t produce the energy required to actually change the climate. His activates may add to the natural processes but he doesn’t cause them. And that is the crux of AGW.

Climate scientists, meanwhile, have had a different response. Although most view the pause as a temporary interruption in a long-term warming trend, some disagree and say it has revealed serious flaws in the deliberative processes of the IPCC.

It’s not temporary; it’s the natural cyclic progression. Some are beginning to see the folly.

One of the most prominent of these critics is Judith Curry, a climatologist who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She was involved in the third IPCC assessment, which was published in 2001. But now she accuses the organization of intellectual arrogance and bias.

Seems like I’m commenting on the entire piece. That wasn’t my intentions. But this reflects my ‘Planet of the Apes’ comment that went satisfiably without a repost.

"All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet," Curry said. "However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact."

WOW! What a statement!! What a concept. Man can only impact climate, he doesn’t change it.

Curry isn't the only one to suggest flaws in established climate models. IPCC vice chair Francis Zwiers, director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at the University of Victoria in Canada, co-wrote a paper published in this month's Nature Climate Change that said climate models had "significantly" overestimated global warming over the last 20 years — and especially for the last 15 years, which coincides with the onset of the hiatus.

Computer models "significantly" overestimating. Unbelievable! How can this be? The world is coming to an end.

The models had predicted that the average global surface temperature would increase by 0.21 of a degree Celsius over this period, but they turned out to be off by a factor of four, Zwiers and his colleagues wrote. In reality, the average temperature has edged up only 0.05 of a degree Celsius over that time — which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero.

Let’s repeat that – “which in a statistical sense is not significantly different from zero”. Maybe Carter was onto something?

Of course, people don't actually spend their entire lives subjected to the global average temperature, which is currently about 15 degrees Celsius, or 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Those who fixate on that single measurement lose sight of significant regional trends, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, climate scientists say.

There goes Gore Nobel Peace Prize. Right out the window with the hockey stick. Too bad, so sad.

"There's no doubt that in terms of global temperatures we've hit a little flat spot in the road here," Patzert said. "But there's been no slowdown whatsoever in sea level rise, so global warming is alive and well."

Patzert is being disingenuous here. Of course global warming is still occurring. We’ve been on the rise since the LIA ended unceremoniously in 1850. What he just tried to do is distance himself from AGW. Trying to blur the distinction. BTW, it’s not a flat spot, it is the top of a hill.

Whether that message is communicated successfully by the IPCC this week remains to be seen. In the days leading up to the meeting, the organization has found itself on the defensive.

Yes, it is on the defensive and like all political bodies, it will not correct its mistakes to save face. It will double down on the lie.

A draft summary that was leaked to the media reported that scientists were "95% confident" that human activity was responsible for more than half of the increase in average global surface temperature between 1951 and 2010. But critics openly scoff, considering the IPCC's poor record for predicting short-term temperature increases.

What?! not 100% confident? Sounds like it is trying to backpedal. It is trying to find a way out which only supports the IPCCs poor track record. But what’s more important is that they are only acknowledging that Man was responsible for half the increase which translates as that Man is not the cause of climate change.

"This unpredicted hiatus just reflects the fact that we don't understand things as well as we thought," said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder and vocal critic of the climate change establishment. "Now the IPCC finds itself in a position that a science group never wants to be in. It's in spin management mode."

”Unpredicted”? I predicted it and so did many others. And many also understand that we don't understand things as well as we thought. This has been a no brainer, at least to those that didn’t get caught up in Gore’s fear mongering which launched the AGW agenda.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The hockey stick is robust and includes the LIA and MWP in their proper global context (ie only major events in Northern Europe), it simply shows that last centuries and current warming is greater, more significant and more rapid. Those two events do nothing to disprove the hockey stick.

Nothing has been destroyed by the evidence for the LIA and MWP and again you are confusing what constitutes a refutation with your own opinion Ravenhawk.

By the way Judith Curry is not a climate scientist as such, she has carried out no original research in the field. She is a scientific commentator on Climate science. There is a big difference. She has shown herself to be consistently wrong and biased in her opinion on the subject.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
Judith Curry is not a climate scientist as such, she has carried out no original research in the field.

classic!

I always suspected, now I know.

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/onlinepapers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

The hockey stick is robust and includes the LIA and MWP in their proper global context (ie only major events in Northern Europe),

not true, as i have shown you many times. the MWP existed in austrialia, the southern oceans, the arctic, antartica, south america, north america, africa, china and many other places outside northern europe. there have been hundreds of studies on the MWP, 99% show the MWP all over the globe. it is difficult to find one that doesn't show it, now how can you average all those studies to get a flat MWP? there would have to be an equal number of studies that showed a mini ice age during the MWP to cancel out the signal, there is no such thing as a medieval ice age period. The Mann study used bristlecone pine trees and overweighted them hundreds of times (400 times iirc) compared to the other proxies he included, bristlecone pines do not respond to temperature so should not be used as thermometers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Its really quite simple regarding the Mann hockey stick. You either accept it, and those many studies which have duplicated it as genuine, along with the investigations by national science academies into its authenticity, as been a true reflection of the temperature record - or you subscribe to the notion that the whole field of climate science and those who support it are indulging in a massive and all encompassing Conspiracy. There really are no other alternatives regarding the Hockey Stick.

Br Cornelius

or C), you or your source are deluded.

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS (National Academy Science) panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’

ipcc-mwp-hockey-stick-globalwarming-graph-wuwt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

classic!

I always suspected, now I know.

http://curry.eas.gat...linepapers.html

My mistake.

Judith Curry has however made consistently wrong statements about climate science, statements which are demonstrably untrue. She is a very poor commentator on climate science who has decided to emphasis uncertainty over the certainty of the science.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

not true, as i have shown you many times. the MWP existed in austrialia, the southern oceans, the arctic, antartica, south america, north america, africa, china and many other places outside northern europe. there have been hundreds of studies on the MWP, 99% show the MWP all over the globe. it is difficult to find one that doesn't show it, now how can you average all those studies to get a flat MWP? there would have to be an equal number of studies that showed a mini ice age during the MWP to cancel out the signal, there is no such thing as a medieval ice age period. The Mann study used bristlecone pine trees and overweighted them hundreds of times (400 times iirc) compared to the other proxies he included, bristlecone pines do not respond to temperature so should not be used as thermometers.

The point you are ignoring is that you MWP and LIA only show up strongly in Northern Europe. They are patchily and weakly detected in other parts of the globe. They appear in the hockey sticks which use multiple proxies (not including the bristlecone pine or even tree ring proxies), but the final uptick dwarves them because it is a consistently global and strong response to 20th century warming

hockeystickoverview.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

or C), you or your source are deluded.

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS (National Academy Science) panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’

ipcc-mwp-hockey-stick-globalwarming-graph-wuwt.jpg

The Wegman report was shown to be wrong in the weight it placed on the conclusions it drew. The issues it raised were not significant to the final shape of the hockey stick - and you will know that because we have discussed it repeatedly. It is a work plagerizing that of McKritric and has been roundly discredited as a political document rather than a scientific anaylsis.

You will know that quoting Dr North out of context changes the conclusion he drew - which was that the Wegman report made no material difference to the shape of the hockey stick. For you to conveniently forget to reference the whole quote, after I have pointed it out to you previously, shows that you are a dingenious reporter of the facts who is indeed a believer in the grand CT.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

My mistake.

Judith Curry has however made consistently wrong statements about climate science, statements which are demonstrably untrue. She is a very poor commentator on climate science who has decided to emphasis uncertainty over the certainty of the science.

Br Cornelius

The truth has been exposed. Global Warming is a hoax.

According to the IPCC, Global Warming - paused - in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming.

The Global Warming Hoax drove up energy prices, carpeted the countryside with wind turbines that kill birds and

terrified children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The truth has been exposed. Global Warming is a hoax.

According to the IPCC, Global Warming - paused - in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming.

The Global Warming Hoax drove up energy prices, carpeted the countryside with wind turbines that kill birds and

terrified children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary.

Care to explain where you found the IPCC saying that :w00t:

Last time I looked the consensus was exactly the opposite. I suppose it depends on which reality you subscribe to :su

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

Care to explain where you found the IPCC saying that :w00t:

Last time I looked the consensus was exactly the opposite. I suppose it depends on which reality you subscribe to :su

Br Cornelius

The truth about the Global Warming Hoax has been suppressed by bluster and skulduggery.

See: Global Warming Believers Are Feeling The Heat

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The truth about the Global Warming Hoax has been suppressed by bluster and skulduggery.

See: Global Warming Believers Are Feeling The Heat

http://blogs.telegra...eling-the-heat/

Exactly the same paper draws exactly the opposite conclusion;

http://www.telegraph...nequivocal.html

Notice that one is an official report in the paper and the other is a webblog opinion piece. Guess which one you chose

:clap:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

Exactly the same paper draws exactly the opposite conclusion;

http://www.telegraph...nequivocal.html

Notice that one is an official report in the paper and the other is a webblog opinion piece. Guess which one you chose

:clap:

Br Cornelius

Opposite conclusion?

Global Warming - paused - in 1998. The IPCC admits the obvious.

The - believers - have their fingers crossed that it will someday resume.

In the meantime Arctic Ice shall continue to increase. We will have more info August 2014.

Then we can compare August 2012 - August 2013 - August 2014 Photos and make a honest assessment of Global Warming.

Is it real or is someone just spreading fear?

- Never Ignore the Sun -

Our sun appears to be abnormally quiet right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

The truth has been exposed. Global Warming is a hoax.

According to the IPCC, Global Warming - paused - in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming.

The Global Warming Hoax drove up energy prices, carpeted the countryside with wind turbines that kill birds and

terrified children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary.

What happened was that the heat was being absorbed by oceans:

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

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

What's driving energy prices is peak oil:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/oil-production-and-consumption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Opposite conclusion?

Global Warming - paused - in 1998. The IPCC admits the obvious.

The - believers - have their fingers crossed that it will someday resume.

In the meantime Arctic Ice shall continue to increase. We will have more info August 2014.

Then we can compare August 2012 - August 2013 - August 2014 Photos and make a honest assessment of Global Warming.

Is it real or is someone just spreading fear?

- Never Ignore the Sun -

Our sun appears to be abnormally quiet right now.

Based on the misapprehension that the planet stopped warming - it has done no such thing. The air represents a tinny portion of the planet and it slowed its warming.

When you are prepared to consider all the data you might have a clue what you are talking about.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

What happened was that the heat was being absorbed by oceans:

http://www.skeptical...in-16-years.htm

http://www.realclima...global-warming/

What's driving energy prices is peak oil:

http://www.economist...and-consumption

What happened is that the IPCC has been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.

They manipulated the computer models to match their bogus predictions.

OOPS! The amount of Arctic Ice increased 60 %.

If heat is being absorbed by the oceans then the ocean would melt the ice.

- Stop Ignoring The Sun -

Wake up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

What happened is that the IPCC has been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.

They manipulated the computer models to match their bogus predictions.

OOPS! The amount of Arctic Ice increased 60 %.

If heat is being absorbed by the oceans then the ocean would melt the ice.

- Stop Ignoring The Sun -

Wake up!

Care to illustrate how they did that. Baseless accusations mean little.

Models have been evolving as new data comes in since the start, the predictions get better as the data gets better. sometime this increases the temperature trend - sometimes it decreases it.

Thats science for you.

As for the Arctic ice sheet issue, it has been pointed out to you how a one season 60% increase from an all time low was entirely predictable - and predicted - by experts in the field. It means nothing to the overall downward trend in Arctic sea ice.

PS - No one is ignoring the sun, but you seem to be ignoring the role of CO2.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CyberKen

Care to illustrate how they did that. Baseless accusations mean little.

Models have been evolving as new data comes in since the start, the predictions get better as the data gets better. sometime this increases the temperature trend - sometimes it decreases it.

Thats science for you.

Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

The Global Warming Toolbox has been exposed for all to see.

- Bluster

- Skulduggery

- Manipulated Computer Models

Even Al Gore is hiding under his desk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The Global Warming Toolbox has been exposed for all to see.

- Bluster

- Skulduggery

- Manipulated Computer Models

Even Al Gore is hiding under his desk.

And you my friend have been shown for a what you are, a politically motivated dupe.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

And you my friend have been shown for a what you are, a politically motivated dupe.

Br Cornelius

Saddly and unknowingly thats what you have become Br, Hide the decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

What happened is that the IPCC has been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar.

They manipulated the computer models to match their bogus predictions.

Computer models were not manipulated to come up with "bogus predictions." Rather, ocean heat content was not considered, which is why it appeared that warming stalled.

OOPS! The amount of Arctic Ice increased 60 %.

As shown earlier, sea ice extent goes up and down, but the trend line is downward.

If heat is being absorbed by the oceans then the ocean would melt the ice.

Which is what we are seeing given the trend line.

- Stop Ignoring The Sun -

Wake up!

As the NAS report and even BEST (which was funded by skeptics) reveal, the sun was never ignored. In fact, it's the main reason why CO2 ppm has a forcing factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

The Global Warming Toolbox has been exposed for all to see.

- Bluster

But the results have been very consistent. The problem is that deniers cherry pick and select limited range of years to support their arguments.

- Skulduggery

Actually, it's been the other way round. See the denial machine documentary for details.

- Manipulated Computer Models

Not true as well, as findings from BEST, which was funded by skeptics, confirm what the NAS and others have shown.

Even Al Gore is hiding under his desk.

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. What you probably want is the NAS final report and summary of findings from BEST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Saddly and unknowingly thats what you have become Br, Hide the decline.

On the contrary, what he has shown has been fairly consistent. In contrast, deniers appear to swing wildly, with some arguing that there is no warming, others arguing that there is warming but that's good for plants, still others arguing that there's warming but it's natural, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.